[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Mirza Matiullaj Baig Alias Mirza ... vs The Union Of India on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.432 of 2026
Dated: 16.04.2026
Between:
Mirza Matiullaj Baig @ Mirza Matiulla Baig Nihal
...Appellant
and
The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001,
and 4 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel Sri Omar A.Pasha appears for the appellant.
Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India,
appears for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5.
Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home, appears
for respondent No.4.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 16.12.2025
passed by the learned writ court disposing of W.P.No.16162 of 2025
filed by the appellant.
3. The appellant approached the learned writ court as respondent
No.3 was not reissuing the passport in spite of complying all the
conditions imposed by the learned trial court. The appellant is an
accused in C.C.No.1580 of 2021 on the file of the learned XII
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at
Rajendranagar. The cognizance has been taken under Sections 406 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was in Germany in connection
with his employment. Upon his return, he was detained in the Rajiv
Gandhi International Airport at Shamshabad, Hyderabad, on 25.12.2020,
as a Look Out Circular (LOC) was operating against him. The appellant
earlier approached this court by filing W.P.No.17357 of 2021 in which,
by judgment dated 08.11.2021, the trial court was directed to entertain
the application for withdrawal of LOC. In the impugned writ petition,
the learned writ court, upon hearing the parties, directed respondent
No.1 to re-issue/renew the passport of the appellant for a period of one
year. The appellant was also directed to file appropriate application
before the learned trial court seeking permission to proceed abroad
during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The learned trial court
was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders by
imposing appropriate conditions. The appellant has preferred this
appeal, as the learned writ court has confined the re-issuance/renewal of
the passport for a period of one year only.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the period of
renewal ought to have been left to the learned trial court. Therefore, the
said observation may be modified.
5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for
respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 has placed a decision rendered by this court
in the case of Nidhi Agarwal v. Union of India 1 on the same issue
where the office memorandum dated 10.10.2019, whereunder
Notification No.GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 has been clarified, has
been referred to.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking note
of the facts and circumstances as referred to above and the decision
rendered by this court in Nidhi Agarwal (supra), we are of the view that
in terms of paragraph 7 of the aforesaid decision, the right course would
be to leave it to the learned trial court to decide whether the renewal of
2025 SCC OnLine TS 1778
passport would be for a short validity period of one year or any other
period specified by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In that view of the matter, the direction at paragraph 5 of the
impugned judgment in W.P.No.16162 of 2025 dated 16.12.2025 is
modified to the extent that if the appellant/writ petitioner makes an
application for issuance of No Objection Certificate, it would be open
for the learned trial court to pass such orders as may be deemed fit and
proper in relation to the prayer for renewal of the passport and the period
for which it is to be renewed.
8. The instant appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
16.04.2026
vs
