RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 1 Date of reserved for orders : 22.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 23.07.2026 Date of uploading : 23.07.2026 APHC010081882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 4839/2026 Between: 1. LAKSHMI NARAYANA TRIPURAMALLU, S/O RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY AGED 68 YEARS R/O D.NO. 5-62-103, 2ND FLOOR BOMMARILLU GRAND APARTMENTS, 2/19, BRODIPET GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH, ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL D.NO. 27-37-158, GOVERNORPET M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520002 ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA. 3. THE STATE, REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .VISAKHAPATNAM THROUGH ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT(S): RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2ND Respondent in rejecting to re issue / renewal of passport vide file number VJ 9077322988725 dtd 21/01/2025 in respect of passport L5971277 issued on 05/11/2013 which expired its validity on 4/11/2023 on he ground of pendency of Cr ( CC 22/2018) on the file of III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam registered by 3RDRespondent though the petitioner discharged from the said crime which is the subject matter of CRL RC 383 OF 2022 preferred by 3RD Respondent pending before High Court Of AP as iiiegal, arbitrary, violative of article 21 of constitution of India as also principles of natural justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2ND Respondent to re issue / rene\A/ of passport vide file number VJ 9077322988725 dtd 21/01/2025 of 2ND Respondent in respect of passport L5971277 issued on 05/11/2013 which was expired its validity- on 4/11/2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR, Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI 2. A RAVINDRA BABU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 3 This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent no.2 in declining to reissue/renewal of passport submitted vide application number VJ 9077322988725, dated 21.01.2025 in relation to passport No.L5971277 issued on 05.11.2013, on the ground of pendency of Calendar Case No.22 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam, despite the fact that the petitioner was discharged from the said case. 2. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of his passport No. L5971277 vide File No.VJ 9077322988725, dated 21.01.2025, however the same was rejected by respondent no.2 vide letter SCN/320656117/25, dated 03.02.2025 on the ground that Crime No.RC 11(A)/2025 of CBI, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A IPC and section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is pending against the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that CBI laid charge sheet in the said Crime vide C.C.No.22/2018 and the petitioner was discharged from the said case vide orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2021 and as of now no crime is pending against petitioner and the petitioner had clearly mentioned the above said facts in the explanation filed by him along with the application, RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 4 however, the respondent no.2 did not consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, and rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that it had received adverse report and required the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Court/ acquittal order vide letter dated 04.03.2025. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 05.03.2025 by enclosing copy of the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2021 in C.C.No.22 of 2018 whereby he was discharged, however, despite the fact that the petitioner was discharged from the case and consequently no case is pending against him, the respondent no.2 declined to renew/reissue the passport. Hence the writ petition. 3. The respondent no.3-Central Bureau of Investigation, filed counter affidavit submitting that the CBI, Visakhapatnam Branch registered a case in Cr.No. RC 11(A)/2015 that the petitioner and others entered into criminal conspiracy to cheat Cotton Corporation of India in the matter of procurement of Cotton Kapas and after completion of investigation three charge sheets were filed. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner was discharged by the learned trial Judge vide orders dated 03.02.2022 and as against the said orders CBI filed Criminal Revision Case vide Crl.R.C.No.383 of RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 5 2022 and the same is pending before this Court and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioner was discharged from C.C.22 of 2018 and no other case either registered or pending against him, the passport authorities cannot deny to reissue/renewal of the passport and therefore, the action of the authorities in rejecting renewal of the passport of the petitioner is highly illegal and unreasonable. He would further contend that since there were no pending criminal charges, outstanding warrants and recent convictions involving moral turpitude as envisaged under Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 the authorities cannot reject renewal/reissue of passport and cannot require the petitioner to submit no objection certificate from the Court or acquittal order. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 6 6. On the other hand, Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would contend that the order discharging the petitioner from C.C.No. 22 of 2018 has been challenged by filing Crl.R.C.No.383 of 2022 and a coordinate Bench of this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.22 of 2018 vide order dated 21.06.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.383 of 2022 and the said Crl.R.C. is pending adjudication and prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The facts would emanate that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused (A-12) in Crime No.RC 11(A)/2015 and upon due investigation charge sheet has been laid in the said crime and the same was taken cognizance of and was numbered as C.C.No.22 of 2018 by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases at Vijayawada. Therein, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2021 under Section 239 and 240, read with 177 and 178 of Criminal Procedure Code praying the court to discharge him from that case. The said petition was allowed and the petitioner was discharged from C.C.No.22 of 2018 by the learned trial Judge vide orders dated 03.02.2022. Aggrieved RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 7 thereby, the State, represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam filed Criminal Revision Case vide Crl.R.C.No.383 of 2022 along with an application vide I.A.No.1 of 2022 for interim suspension of the orders dated 03.02.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2021 in C.C.No.22 of 2018 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.06.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.383 of 2022 granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings. 9. With the above facts, section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, which outlines the legal grounds upon which the passport authority must or may refuse to issue a passport, travel document, or make an endorsement for visiting foreign countries, envisages that Section 6(2): Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: - (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India., (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India., (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 8 (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. 10. Section 6(2)(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trail in a criminal court. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, has been considered on several occasions by the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would depend on no objection being given by the concerned court. 11. In the case on hand, admittedly, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance of by the appropriate court and later the petitioner filed application before the appropriate Court for discharging him from that case and the said petition was allowed and thereby the petitioner was discharged from that case. RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 9 12. As stated supra, the order passed by the trial Court allowing the petition filed for discharge was challenged by the State by filing Criminal Revision Case and a coordinate bench of this Court granted interim suspension of the order impugned in the said Crl.R.C.No.383 of 2022. By granting an interim suspension of the trial court’s discharge order, this Court effectively revived the charges against the accused. For all practical purposes and procedural matters, the petitioner continues to hold the status of an accused, and the original criminal case remains actively pending before the court. Therefore, the order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court granting interim suspension freezes the trial court's discharge order. As a result, the pre-discharge status quo is restored, meaning the criminal proceedings are live and continuing against the petitioner. 13. In Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. State of A.P.1 and more recently in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the pendency of a criminal case is not an absolute bar to passport renewal and that an applicant facing pending criminal charges can obtain a valid passport if they secure a "no objection" or permission from the concerned trial court for its issuance/renewal. 1 . 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549 2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887 RC,J W.P.No.4839 of 2026 10 14. By applying the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the case on hand, as the discharge order of the trial Court has been frozen by coordinate bench of this Court by granting interim suspension, for all the practical purposes since the petitioner continues to hold the status of an accused in C.C.No.383 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam, he has to approach the said court and obtain no objection certificate for getting renewal of his passport. 15. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to obtain no objection certificate from the court wherein C.C.No.383 of 2022 is pending for getting renewal of his passport. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 23rd July, 2026. RR Whether the order is:   Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No   Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No