APHC010242172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 11950/2024 Between: 1. ATTADA RAMU,, S/O. ATTADA APPARAO, AGED 25 YEARS RESIDENT OF 3-24, TUNIVALASA, PADMANABHAM MANDAT, VISAKHAPATNAM-531219,ANDHRAPRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM COMMISSIONERATE. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PADMANABHAM POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM COMMISSIONERATE. 4. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, NEAR PF OFFICE,BESIDE RYTHU BAZAAR, MARRIPALEM, VUDA LAYOUT,NAD POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. THE SPL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND DTY TAHSILDARRESURVEY, MRO OFFICE,PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. MR G KISHORE KUMAR, WORKING AS SPL. EXECUTIVE SRS,J W.P.No.11950 of 2024 MAGISTRATE ET DTY. TAHSILDAR(RESURVEY) MRO OFFICE,PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8. THADDI SUREEDU, S/O. LATE PYDAIAH, AGED 77YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, TUNIVALASA VILLAGE, PADMANABHAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam in not processing the Petitioner's Passport Application vide File No. VS1066378152324, and also against the action of the Respondents 5,6, 7 and 8 in interfering unduly and highhandedly with the Property of Attada Apparao, father of the Petitioner with sheer disobedience to the existing High Court Interim Orders in contempt of Court, in contributing greatly to this extreme condition of initiating false Police Proceedings against the Petitioner lis pendens in High Court vide WP. No. 26406/2023, declaring such action/s of the Respondents 1 to 8 in causing obstruction to issuance of Passport on the grounds of Adverse Police Verification Report, as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional by violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and also violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, and as contrary to the Judicial Pronouncements, and consequently, directing especially the 4th Respondent to process Petitioner's Passport Application and to facilitate him with a Passport by considering Petitioner's Explanation dated 25-04-2024, without considering Adverse Police Verification Report in Light of the Orders passed by Honourable Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna in WP. No. 18066/ 2023 on 14th day of February, 2024, in High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, (Copy of the Order attached), pending disposal of the Present Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 consider the Petitioner's representation/explanation given to the Regional Passport Officer dated 25-04-2024 pending disposal of the Present Writ Petition and to pass SRS,J W.P.No.11950 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BEHARA RAJSHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) 4. BHASKARA RAO ALLUMURU The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.4, in not processing the application made by the petitioner, in pursuance of the passport application vide File No.VS1066378152324, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Rajshekar Behara, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri J. Bhanu Varma, learned counsel representing Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel, appeared for respondent No.4 and Sri Bhagat Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondents 5 & 6. 3. The petitioner made an application to respondent No.4 for the issuance of a passport vide File No.VS1066378152324. Respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 10.04.2024 (Ex.P4), due to an adverse police verification report. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 25.04.2024 (Ex.P5). Despite the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.4 did not passport. Hence, the writ petition. Page 4 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.11950 of 2024 4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a case in Cr.No.99 of 2023 of Padmanabham Police Station was registered against the petitioner and others, wherein the petitioner was shown as accused No.3. No charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel further would submit that mere pendency of a crime has no bar to issuing a passport. 5. Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions would submit that in pursuance of Cr.No.99 of 2023 of Padmanabham Police Station, the police filed a charge sheet on the file of the learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District and the same was numbered as C.C.No.608 of 2024, wherein the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused. Learned counsel also would submit that since the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to make an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 6. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the Criminal Court has taken cognizance. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024 considered the said aspect of cognisance by Court concerning an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows: “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 was SRS,J W.P.No.11950 of 2024 no cognizance taken, there would be no question of „proceedings pending before a criminal Court‟, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.” 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 same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 24.03.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.11950 of 2024 171 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.11950 OF 2024 Date : 24.03.2025 TVN