MOHAMMED NOOMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B. Rama Shankara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yagna Dutt, learned counsel, appeared for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for respondents 5 and 6.

(2.) The petitioner made an application vide No.MA1077401822925, dtd. 13/2/2025 (Ex.P1), seeking to renew/re-issue the passport of the petitioner bearing No.M7409122. Respondent No.3 sought clarification vide notice dtd. 18/2/2025 (Ex.P3), due to an adverse police verification report regarding the petitioner's involvement in Cr.No.626 of 2021 of Patamata PS. The petitioner did not submit any explanation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of a criminal case is no bar to re-issue/renew the passport. Learned counsel relied upon the order dtd. 26/9/2024 in W.P.No.18328 of 2024.