TT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12154 OF 2025 Between: R. Tejaswini, D/o. Ravi Babu, Age. 26 years, Occupation. Student, R/o. H.No.17-131, Ponniyamman Koil Street, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi, India. 2. The Regional Passport Office, Represented by its Regional Passport Officer, Opp to Radio Station, Governerpet, M.G Road, Vijayawada. 3. The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...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 be pleased to issue an order or writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus challenging the action of 2"^^ respondent in issuing the passport bearing No. B9880627 for a period of only one year, instead of prescribed period of 10 years as per Section 7 of the Passport Act, 1967 in consonance with Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980 illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of section 7 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Rule 12(1) of the Passport rules, 1980 and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, consequentially direct the Respondents to issue/renew the passport for a period of 10 years, in accordance with Section 7 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980. as lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 to issue/renew and grant passport for a period of 10 years in accordance with Section 7 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980 forthwith pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T. DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI VENKATESWARLU GUNDUBOINA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010231002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) B [3331] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12154/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER R. Tejaswini AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VENKATESWARLU GUNDUBOINA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing passport bearing No.B9880627 for one year, instead of issuing the same for 10 years as mandated under Section 7 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Rule 12 (1) of the Passport Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 1 2. Page 2 of 7 SRS,J . W.P.No.12154 of 2025 & 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4 in C.C.No.6629 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 420, 406, 506 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, arising out of Cr.No.201 of 2023 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. The petitioner applied for a passport. However, the respondent No.2 denied the same, due to the pendency of C.C.No.6629 of 2023. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.7814 of 2023 in C.C.No.6629 of 2023 on the file of the learned XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad. The said petition was allowed on 22.01.2024, holding that the petitioner is entitled to a passport and further directed the authorities to issue a new passport to the petitioner. In pursuance of the order dated 22.01.2024 in the aforementioned criminal petition, the petitioner applied for a passport. Respondent No.2 issued a passport bearing No.B9880627 for one year commencing from 08.02.2024 to 07.02.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner may not get even visa, given the duration of one year qua the passport. The petitioner applied vide File No.VJ 1076847377724 before respondent No.2, seeking extension of passport. However, the same was closed. The petitioner filed W.P.No.7967 of 2025, challenging the refusal to renew the passport. The said writ petition was disposed of on 04.04.2025, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and make a fresh application. The petitioner filed Crl.P.No.2304 of 2025 on the file of the High Court for the State of Telangana, wherein an order was passed dispensing with the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court. 4. Learned Panel counsel would submit that the petitioner applied for a fresh passport on 08.12.2023. The police verification report indicates the involvement of the petitioner in Cr.No.201 of 2023 of Jubilee Hills Police 5. Page 3 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.12154 of 2025 Station. Respondent No.2 received an order in Crl.M.P.No.7814 of 2023 and issued a short, valid passport for one year. The petitioner applied for re issuance of a passport bearing No.B9880627 vide File No.VJ 1076847377724 dated 14.08.2024. The petitioner suppressed the information about the pendency of a criminal case. A show-cause notice vide Letter Ref.No.SCN/319204689/24, dated 21.08.2024 was issued. Later, Letter Ref.No.FCI/319610519/24 dated 28.09.2024 was issued as per the extant norms, and thereafter, the file was closed on 10.12.2024. The petitioner may apply for renewal at any Regional Passport Office across India. If the petitioner intends to travel abroad, the petitioner has to get permission from the jurisdictional Court. Thus, as seen from the pleadings in the writ petition and the instructions of the learned Panel Counsel, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner making an application for issuance of a passport vide No.VJ 1076847377724; petitioner’s involvement in Cr.No.201 of 2023 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, C.C.No.6629 of 2023 arising out of the aforementioned crime has been pending on the file of learned XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad. In fact, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.7814 of 2023 in C.C.No.6629 of 2023, and the said writ petition was ordered, directing the passport authorities to issue a new passport to the petitioner. Thereafter, a short-term passport was issued to the petitionerfor one year. 6. File Section 7 of the Passport Act and Rule 12 of the Rules prescribe the duration of passports and travel documents. Section 7 of the Act envisages that a passport or travel document shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for such period as may be prescribed. Rule 12 outlines that normally a passport shall be in force for ten (10) years, other than for children below the age of 15 years. 7. Page 4 of 7 W.P.No.12154 of 2025 8. The Proviso to Section 7 clarifies that may be issued for a shorter period than the prescribed period; i) if the person by whom it is required so desires; or ii) if the passport authority, for the applicant, considers should be issued for a shorter period. a passport or travel document reasons to be communicated in writing to any case that the passport or travel document in 9. Thus, as per the scheme of the Act, document will be issued for 10 normally a passport or a travel years. In case of any criminal cases, the and based on the orders. application must approach the jurisdictional Court the passport will be issued. 10. This Court in W.P.No.9703 of 2025 held that renewing passport for by the jurisdictional Magistrate and directed considered, a similar issue, and year does not align with the order passed J the authority to renew the passport for 10 years in terms of Section 7 & 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. petition, this court relied upon a division bench of the one While disposing of the writ Bombay High Court. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in an identical situation in Narendra K.Ambwani v. Union of India^ dated 26.8.1993 at paras 6,7,10 and 11 observed 11. upon considering G.S.R. 570(E) ] as follows: ‘6. This court held that the Rules have been Passport Act and under Rule 12, more than 15 years, shall be In force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue. framed under the a passport other than for a child aged 7. In the present case, the Respondents contended that the the learned Magistrate did not specify the period for which order of the passport IS issued and m the light of Notification dated 23^^^ August, 1993 (Annexure “6” to the petition), the passport of the citizen against whom 2104 see online Bom 356 SRS,J W.P.No.12154 of 2025 the proceedings are pending in the criminal court in India, shall be issued for a period specified by the court and if no period is specified, the passport shall be renewed for a period of one year. This court held that interpretation of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20*" September, 2006 is contrary to the express language of the order. When the order speaks about renewal of the passport in terms of the Passport Rules, reference must be made to Rule 12 alone and the Passport Officer was bound to issue the passport either for a period of 10 years or for a period of 20 years as the case may be in his discretion. The Passport Officer could not have at any rate renewed the passport for a period less than 10 years. Accordingly, the Rule was made absolute and the Regional Passport Officer was directed to issue the passport, renewed for a period of 10 years or 20 years, (emphasis added) In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate's court has directed that the passports may be renewed as per the “Rules”. 10. 11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions:— (a) In all cases where the Magistrate's court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All qualifying applicants are entitled to have passports renewed for at least ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants at least for ten years. (b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on an existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the additional booklet to the same passport, provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad. (c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26^^ August, 1993, the SRS.J W.P.No.12154 of 2025 passport shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned. ” Another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court followed the above judgment in Mr.Samip Nitin Ranjani v. Union of India and others^. 12. 13. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, the petitioner approached the jurisdictional criminal Court and made an application vide Crl.M.P.No.7814 of 2023, and the same was ordered on 22.01.2024. The order passed by the learned Magistrate does not indicate the specific period for the issuance of a passport. In the absence of the issuing a short-term passport by respondent No.2 is impermissible. A short-term passport, in the facts of the same. in the considered opinion of this court, is not only illegal but also arbitrary and a violation of the right to travel. case. 14. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and since the application made by the petitioner for renewal was closed on 10.12.2024, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application seeking renewal of passport bearing No.B9880627. Upon filing of such application, respondent No.2 shall renew the passport for 10 years, keeping in view Sections 7 & 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, read with Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980, without insisting on another order from the jurisdictional criminal court again. No order as to costs. the As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ^2016 see Online Bom 14539 Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR assista.nt registrar ^SEC^N OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Wh Union of India, South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi, India. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Opp to Radio Station, Governerpet, M.G Road, Vijayawada. 3. The Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana. 4. One CC to Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Venkateswarlu Gunduboina, (Central Govt Counsel) [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) 7. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT i DATED: 17/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.12154of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS