IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13133 OF 2025 Between; Ravi Ramesh, S/o.Ravi Rangaiah, aged about 78 years R/o.D.No.3-28- 18/60, 5th line, Brindhavan Gardens, Guntur. ...Petitioner AND 1 The Union Government of India, Rep by its Principal Secretary Ministry of External Affairs South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi, India. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, GJ3M+X9M, Venkateswara Theatre Complex, MG Rd, opp. Radio Station, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520610. 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur District. 4. The Station House Officer, N.G.Padu Police Station, Prakasam 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 be pleased to issue a writ, order, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of respondent no.2 in issuing the Proceedings vide SCN/321426499/25 dated 26-04-2025 thereby refusing to renew the passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application no. VJ9077541666125 dated 08-04-2025 on the ground of pending FIR against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and against Article 14 and 21 of our Indian Constitution and consequently to direct respondent no.2 to renew the passport for the petitioner pursuant to his application no.VJ9077541666125 dated 08-04- 2025. 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 Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's application no.VJ9077541666125 dated 08-04-2025 for Renewal of a passport in view of explanation dated 30-04-2025 submitted by the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents 3 & 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010254412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY .THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13133/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Ravi Ramesh, AND ...FESPONDENT(S) The Union Government Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR HOME 2 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri P.Aditya Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 3 and 4. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of 2"^^ respondent in not renewing/reissuing the passport in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner VJ9077541666125 dated 08.04.2025 due to the pendency of Crime No.40/2016 dated 12.04.2016 under Sections 407 and 406 IPC of N.G.Police Station, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitionerwas issued passport bearing No.Z3223492 for ten (10) years with effect from 22.05.2015 to 21.05.2025. The petitioner applied for renewal/reissuance of passport on 08.04.2025. A shortfall notice (Ex.P.2) dated 26.04.2025 issued to the petitioner due to an adverse police verification report. The petitioner submitted explanation on 30.04.2024 (Ex.P.3). Despite the explanation, the 2"''^ respondent has not renewed/reissued the passport. Learned counsel would submit that mere pendency of a crime is not a ground. 3. was 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions would submit that final report filed by the police before the jurisdictional Court i.e. the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Excise Court, Ongole. The same was returned anc' again resubmitted on 16.04.2024. However, the Court has not taken cognizance so far. 5. Section 6 of the Act deals with the refusal of passports, travel documents etc. Section 6(2)(f), which is relevant is extracted hereunder; 6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: - (2) or (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India', observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on. the subjective satisfaction of anyone. 6. (;j978) 1 see 248): AIR 1978 Se 597 3 The two judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others^, observed as under; "The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the ^individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right." The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi^, observed as follows; “The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 8. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024, considered the aspect of cognizance by the jurisdictional Court in a criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows; “16. Considering the fact’s 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. I 9. 17. Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken ^ LAWS 2019(2) see Online Se 2048 ’^2013(15) see Page 570 by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapte of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there was no taken, there would be rXVI cognizance no question of ‘proceedings pending before a provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of criminal Court’, which would attract the the Passports Act, 1967. 10. In the case at hand, the jurisdictional cognizance. Mere pendency of crime is not a bar for passport. court has not taken renewing/reissuing the any 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage directing the 2« respondent to renew/re issue the passport of the petitioner, in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner vide VJ9077541666125 dated 08.04.2025, without reference to crime No.40 of 2016 dated 12.04.2016. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M, SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To. SECTION OFFICER Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh 5206ia 4. The Station House officer, N.G.Padu Police station 5. One CC to M/s Pillix Law Firm, [o'puq 7. TwoCCstoGPforHome 8. Two CD Copies D • ■ , ..^^3irs, Union Government Raisina Hill, New Delhi, India. , State of Andhra Pradesh District. Prakasam District. Advocate [OPUC] Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] RAM HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER g 2 1 MAY ?m S Current Section WP.No.13133 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS