Ajay Kumar Vallamkonda Vs Union of India

Ajay Kumar Vallamkonda, S/o. Late Bhaskar Rao, Aged about 41 years, Occ Private, resident of No.24, Spanzilla villa, Parvathpur, Rachakonda, Medchal, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministryof External Affairs, PSP Division, New Delhi

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Bldgs, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶15

The Regional Passport Officer, Passport office, D.No.8-2-215 to 2'19, Klrmmarguda, Secunderabad, Pl N-500003.

¶16

The Assistant Passport Officer, Passport Seva Kendra Secunderabad.

¶17

Pakala Bhaskar, S/o Venkata Swamy age 63 yrs occ Retd.Employee Fl/o Villa No.89, Spanzilla, Parvathapur Road, Peerzadiguda, Uppal, Medchal, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in rejecting the Petitioner's renewal application No. HY10761 08693725, dated 19-'l 2-2O25, loc renewal of Passport No. N9116865 on 19-01-2026, solely on the ground of pendency of Crime No.105112022, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and contrary to the Passports Act, 1967 and consequently direct

¶20

Respondents N,:.3 and 4 to process and renew the petitione/s passport by considering Application No. Hy1076108693725, dated ,19-12-2025, and to travet abroad for every two months on my work in Dubai.

¶21

l.A. NO:1OF 2026

¶22

Petition under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct Respondents Nc.3 & 4 to consider and process the renewal of the petitioner,s passport under Apprication No. Hy107610g69372s, dated 1g-12-202s, pending disposal of the urrit petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOTA LAKSHMT SAI SIRISHA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.l, 3 & 4: SMT N.V.R.RAJYALAKSHMI, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT., REP. SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Gp FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for thr: Respondent No.S: SRI VIJAY KUMAR

¶27

The Court made the foilowing: ORDER

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.6 L47 of 2o26

¶30

06.o3.2026

¶31

Between:

¶32

Ajay Kumar Vallamkonda.

¶33

.Petitioner

¶34

AND

¶35

The Union of [ndia, Represented by its Secret"ry, Ministry of External Affairs, PSP Division, New Delhi & four others. ...Respondents

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

The Writ Petition is fited challenging the action of respondent passport autthorities in rejecting the petitioner's renewal application vide FiIe No. HY lO7 6 1086937 25 , dated 19 .l2 .?,O25 , for renewal of Passport No.N9116865 on 19.O1.2026, on the ground of pendency of criminal case.

¶38

Heard Ms. Kota Lakshmi Sai Sirisha learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.N.V.R. Rajyalakshmi, learned Standing Counsef for central Government representing on behalf of Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, \o learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of

¶39

2

¶40

respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri VUay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Perused the record.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere arraignment of the petitioner in criminal cases cannot be a ground for denial of passlrort.

¶42

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that criminal case is pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.423O of 2022 on th-e file of l.earned Prl. Junior Ciuit Jud.ge-cum-tV Additional Judiciat Magistrate of First c/ass, at Medchal-Malkajgii, uppal, at L.B. Nagar for^{the offenc,z under} Section 5O4 of tLte Ind.ian Penal Cod.e "for short [PC"- In vierv of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner, thr: petitioner is required to approach the concerned trial court for necessary Noc/permission to obtain passport, and thereafter furnish the same before the passport authority for considering reissue/renewal of passport. [n the instant case, the petitioner has; not furnished NOC/permission from the trial Court and therefore thr:re is no illegality in refusing to reissue/renew the passport.

3

\

I I

It is settled raw that mere pendencv of criminar proceedings cannot be a ground to refuse issuance of passport. Further, it is relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Honble Division Bench of this court in w.A.No.194 of 2026, dated rr.02.2026, wherein the Division Bench has observed as follows:

¶47

"r3. [n the right of the principle laid down by the Apex colT 9919erning th.e inierpreiation or csR siotB,ii.,.a 2s'o9.I993 and office Memorandum dared ro.io.iorg, we are of the considered view that the appeilani "t o"ra make an application for seeking Noc from the concerned trial courts where criminai cases are penaing against him. It is upon issuance of Noc that the appelrant shourd file an apprication for renewal of the passport. In case the courts prescribe a period for which the passport is to be issued, the- passport authority shourd honour that period. otherwise, if it does not stipurate any period, the notification provides defaurt rules, including issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases.,,

¶48

6 ' tn'the instant case, there is no material praced on record to show that the petitioner filed an application before the concerned trial court seeking a "I.ro objection certificate,, for obtaining a passport. In view of the pending criminar proceedings against the petitioner, this court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the concerned trial court and make an appropriate apprication seeking a 'No objection certificate" for obtaining passport. upon filing such application, the trial court shall consider the s€une and pass appropriate orders expeditiousry, preferabry within one week from the

r i : I I

I '-'/};

4

date of filing of such application. Upon furnishing the Noc b1, rhe petitioner, the passport authority sha, consider the same for reissuing/rene:wing of passport in accordance with raw.

¶53

7 ' [t is ma<re crear that the Noc that may be issued by the trial court to the Sretitioner for obtaining passport shall not be construed as a permissicn to travel abroad. In case the petitioner intends to travel abroad curing pendency of criminar proceedings, the petitioner shall file a seJlarate applicaticn seeking permission to travel abroad, by specifying the duration of travel, and the trial court shall consid'er such appricat-ion on its own merits, by imposing appropriate conditions in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the trial , court shall proceed in accordance with raw to secure the presence of the petitioner in case of vioration of any of the conditions so imposed while granting abroad travel permission.

¶54