Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Lakshmi Narayana Tripuramallu vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2026
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 [3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
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
