Karnataka High Court
Sri Shrikant S/O Bhimappa Arishinagodi vs Union Of India on 18 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2544
WP No. 100786 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 100786 OF 2026 (GM-PP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHRIKANT S/O BHIMAPPA ARISHINAGODI,
AGED. 53 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR,
R/O. WARD NO. 18, APMC ROAD,
BASAV NAGAR, TQ. MUDHOL,
PO. MAHALINGAPUR, DIST. BAGALKOT,
KARNATAKA-587312.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL,
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.
Digitally signed by 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 8TH BLOCK, 80 FEET
Location: HIGH ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M KHARVI, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DATED
30.12.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-D
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2544
WP No. 100786 of 2026
HC-KAR
WHEREBY THE RENEWAL OF THE PETITIONER'S PASSPORT HAS BEEN
REFUSED, THE SAME BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 19 AND 21 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO RENEW THE PETITIONER'S PASSPORT
FORTHWITH; C. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HONBLE COURT
DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE
INCLUDING AN ORDER FOR COSTS MAY KINDLY BE PASSED IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the endorsement/order dated 30.12.2025 issued by Respondent No.2, vide Annexure-D whereby the renewal of the petitioner's passport has been refused, the same being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 2 to renew the petitioner's passport forthwith;-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2544 WP No. 100786 of 2026 HC-KAR c. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case including an order for costs may kindly be passed in the interest of justice and equity."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a pediatrician having an unblemished record and in his professional practice as a pediatrician, he frequently undertakes journeys abroad for the purpose of attending international medical conferences. The petitioner has made an application for renewal of his passport on 06.01.2025 before respondent No.2 but respondent No.2 by an endorsement dated 13.12.2025 has refused to renew the petitioner's passport solely on the ground that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that complainant in both criminal cases is the sister-in-law of the petitioner. After the unfortunate demise of the petitioner's brother, disputes arose between the petitioner and his sister-in-law with regard to the family and joint property resulting in a complete breakdown of cordial relations between them. She has also instituted a civil suit against the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents are refusing to renew the passport on the ground that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, it is violative of Article 19 and 21 -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2544 WP No. 100786 of 2026 HC-KAR of the Constitution of India. As long as the accused is not the convict, it is presumed that the accused is an innocent and as such the respondents notwithstanding the fact that the criminal case is pending, ought to have renewed the passport. He had relied on an order of the High Court of Telangana in the case of Ravikanti Venkatesham v. The Union of India and another arising out of Writ Petition No.32906/2023 and paragraph 9 of the said order reads as under:
"9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and duly taking into consideration the raw laid down in the above said judgments (referred to and extracted above), the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd Respondent-passport officer to consider the application No.HY75C5OO82O4523 of the petitioner dated 27.O1-.ZOZ3 seeking renewal of petitioner's passport, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without relating it to the pendency of the proceedings in C.C.No.391 of 2O22 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
3. Relying on the above order, it is submitted that there shall be a direction to the respondent to renew the passport. It is submitted that charge sheet is filed in both the cases. Looking at the civil disputes between the parties, the respondents cannot deny to renew the passport.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2544 WP No. 100786 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and 2 and submits that the Division Bench of Kalburgi Bench in the case of Sanjay Kheny v. Krishna K arising out of in CCC No.200184/2023 clubbed with W.A.No.200170/2022 dated 18.12.2023, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed that in cases falling under Clause (f) of sub-section 2 of Section 6, even for the purpose of obtaining a passport or renewal of a passport, the permission of the Court where the criminal proceedings are pending against the party is required to be taken. Clause (e) of sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Act allows the Passport Authority to refuse to issue a passport on any or more of the grounds enumerated therein and clause (f) is a situation where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant is pending before a Criminal Court and accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court has passed the order directing the party to approach the Court where criminal proceedings are pending.
5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in both the cases, the charge -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2544 WP No. 100786 of 2026 HC-KAR sheet is already filed against the petitioner. Further, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in Sanjay Kheny's case (referred supra) the remedy available to the petitioner is to go before the very same Court and file an appropriate application. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before the Trial Court.
(ii) Considering the fact that the petitioner is a doctor and has to attend some conference, the Trial Court shall expeditiously consider the petition.
(iii) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN, CT: CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62