IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SAT WRIT PETITION NO: 6279 OF 2025 Between: Mr. Mohammed Nooman, S/o Rehaman, Aged about 35 Years, Occ: Private Employee R/o. H.No.14-1172, Mahadevapuram Colony, Temple Street, Kanuru, Vijayawada(Rural), N .T.R District-517644. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, CPV and Overseas Indian Affairs Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Passport Authority of India, Rep. by its Chief Pass Port Officer, PSP Division Ministry of External Affairs, Room No. 8, Patiala House, New Delhi. The Regional Passport Office, Chennai Royola Towers, No.2 and 3 4th Floor, Old No. 785, New No. 158, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600002, Tamilnadu State. The Regional Passport Office, Rep. by its Regional Passport Officer, 4th Floor, Stalin Central, D.No. 27-37-158 M G Road Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings Amaravati, Guntur District. The Station House Officer, Patamata P.S, Vijayawada, N.T.R District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may 3. 4. 5. 6. be pleased to issue a writ more particularly in the form of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents in issuing the passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application vide Application No. MA1077401822925 dated 13.02.2025 under the guise of pendency of a criminal case vide FIR No. 626/2021 the file of the Patamata P.S., and in issuing notice vide SCN SCN/320767631/25 dated 18.02.2025, without assigning any valid reasons as illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, perverse, unfair, biased, preposterous, whimsical, capricious, unconscionable, unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair-play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to consequentially direct the respondents to issue a fresh passport with a validity of 10 years to the petitioner without reference to the said crime. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 respondents to make renewal of the passport of the petitioner submitted vide application No. MAI 077401822925 dated 13.02.2025 forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B. RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI JUPUDI V.K. YAGNADUTT, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI AJAY, ASST.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010123382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 0S^ [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6279/2025 Between: 1.MOHAMMED NOOMAN, S/0 REHAMAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/0. H.NO.14-1172, MAHADEVAPURAM COLONY, TEMPLE STREET, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA(RURAL), N .T.R DISTRICT-517644. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CPV AND OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2.THE PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF PASS PORT OFFICER, PSP DIVISION MINISTRY OF EXTERNALAFFAIRS, ROOM NO. 8, PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI. 3.THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, CHENNAI ROYOLA TOWERS, N0.2 AND 3 4TH FLOOR, OLD NO. 785, NEW NO. 158, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-60Q002, TAMILNADU STATE. 4.THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.O. 27-37- 158 M G ROAD VIJAYAWADA. N.T.R. DISTRICT. 5.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. Page 2 of 6 SRS.J W.P.No.6279 of 2025 6.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATAMATA P.S, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in issuing the passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application vide Application No. MA1077401822925 dated 13.02.2025 under the guise of pendency of a criminal case vide FIR No. 626/2021 the file of the Patamata P.S., and in issuing notice vide SCN SCN/320767631/25 dated 18.02.2025, without assigning any valid reasons as perverse,unfair. unreasonable,irrational. arbitrary. unreasonable,irrational. arbitrary. illegal,manifestly biased.preposterous, whimsical, capricious,unconscionable, unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair-play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to consequentially^, 19, direct the respondents to issue a fresh passport with a validity of 10 years to the petitioner without reference to the said crime and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 respondents to make renewal of the passport of the petitioner submitted forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1.GP FOR HOME 2. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) vide application No. MAI 077401822925 dated 13,02.2025 SRS.J W.P.No.6279 of 2025 The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: 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 & 6. The petitioner made an application vide N0.MAI 077401822925, dated 13.02.2025 (Ex.PI), seeking to renew/re-issue the passport of the petitioner bearing No.M7409122. Respondent No.3 sought clarification vide notice dated 18.02.2025 (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. 2. 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 dated 26.09.2024 in W.P.No.18328 of 2024. At the hearing, Sri Yagna Dutt, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that the police filed a charge sheet on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 323, 506, 509 of IPC and issued summons to the accused. Since the competent criminal Court has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024, considered the said aspect of cognisance by the Court in a criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows: 5. Page 4 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.6279 of 2025 “16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there w/as no cognizance taken, there would be no question of ‘p<'oceedings pending before a criminal Court’, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.” 6. In the case at hand, the Criminal Court has taken cognizance and issued summons. Once the Criminal Court has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and make an appropriate application. Apart from the above discussion, in this case at hand, the petitioner did not even submit an explanation to the shortfall notice and approached the Court. The petitioner was expected to submit an explanation. This Court doesn’t find, in the facts of this case, infringement of right, if any, of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional criminal court and make an appropriate application. If such an ' application is filed, the learned jurisdictional criminal court shall consider the 8. SRS,J W.P.No.6279 of 2025 same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Passports Act and the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.U.V BHASKARA RAO ASSISfAN^E^TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. The Secretary, Union of India, CPV & Overseas Indian Affairs Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Pass Port Officer, Passport Authority of India, PSP Division Ministry of External Affairs, Room No. 8, Patiala House, New Delhi. 4. The Regional Passport Office, Chennai Royola Towers, No.2, 3 & 4 Floors, Old No. 785, New No. 158, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600002, Tamilnadu State. 5. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 4*^^ Floor, Stalin Central, D.o. 27-37-158 M G Road Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. 6. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Home departrnent Secretariat buildings Amaravati, Guntur District. 7. The Station House Officer, Patamata P.S, Vijayawada, N.T.R District. 8. One CC to Sri B.Rama Shankar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, Central Government Counsel.[OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. th 10. 11. gi HIGH COURT g> DATED:24/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6279 of 2025 andh^ (18 APR ^ . Currenl Section mi, 09 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS