\ ? Wj > V ix.% APHC010342802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17415 OF 202S Between: Pavan Kalyan Somala, S/o. Ratna Babu Somaia, Aged 27 years, D.No.4-46 Vidya Nagar, Davajigudem Gannavaram, Krishna District-521101. ...Petitioner AND 1. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Represented by its Secretary, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Pass Port Officer, Regional Pass Port Office, Vijayawada 3. The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Office, Vijayawada . 4. The Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Gannavaram, Krishna 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 or Order or Direction more particularly Nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particularly the 2"^^ Respondent in not issuing the Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner only on the sole ground that the petitioner is involved in F.I.R. No.52/2023 U/s 337 of I.P.C., as well as in F.I.R.No. 609/2021 on the file of Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District even though it is a petty case as well as the matter is settled out of Court even both are in F.I.R., stage inspite one in the of the same the 2^"^ respondent insisting the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate or any Order from the Competent Court for issuing a Fresh Pass Port it is nothing but an Illegal , Unalwful, Violation of Article 14,19,21 of the Constitution of India, Violation of Principles of Natural Justice , Violaiton of the Rulings of Apex Court as well as Central Government Rules Consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to Issue a Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner on applying without insisting any No Objection or anything without reference to the F.I.R. No.52/2023 and F.I.R.NO. 609/2021 on the file of Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District. 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 2'^^ respondent to issue a Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner on applying without insisting any No Objection or anything without reference to the F.I.R. No.52/2023 and F.I.R.No. 609/2021 Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District pending disposal of the main writ petition. the file of Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAVURI LEELA SAI SAMPATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010342802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17415/2025 Between: 1. PAVAN KALYAN SOMALA, S/0 RATNA BABU SOMAIA, AGED 27 YRS D.NO.4-46, V1DYA NAGAR.DAVAJIGUDEM GANNAVARAM , KRISHNA DISTRICT-521101- ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTRY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2.THE REGIOINAL PASS PORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASS PORT OFFICE , VIJAYAWADA 3.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COMMISSIONERATE OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA . 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GANNAVARAM POLICE STATION GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA 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 toMay be Pleased to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particulalry one in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particulalry the 2nd Respondent in not issuing the Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner only on the sole ground that the petitoner is involved in F.I.R. No.52/2023 U/s 337 of I.P.C., as well as in F.I.R.NO. 609/2021 on the file of Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District even though it is a petty case as well as the matter is settled out of Court even both are in F.LR., stage inspite of the same the 2nd respondent insisting the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate or any Order from the Competent Court for issuing a Fresh Pass Port it is nothing but an Illegal , Unalwful, Violation of Article 14,19,21 of the Constitution of India, Violation of Principles of Natural Justice , Violaiton of the Rulings of Apex Court as well as Central Government Rules Consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to Issue a Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner on applying without insisting any No Objection or anything without reference to the F.I.R. No.52/2023 and F.I.R.NO. 609/2021 on the file of Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District. and pass such 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 May be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to Issue a Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner on applying without insisting any No Objection or anything without reference to the F.I.R. No.52/2023 and F.I.R.No. 609/2021 the file of Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAVURI LEELASAI SAMPATH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17415/202.G ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief: “...to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 2""^ Respondent in not issuing the Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner only on the sole ground that the petitioner is involved in F.LR.No.52/2023 U/s 337 of I.P.C., as well as in F.LR.No. 609/2021 on the file of Gannavaram P.S, Krishna District even though it is a petty case as well as the matter is settled out of Court even both are in FIR stage inspite of the same the 2”"^ respondent insisting the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate or any Order from the Competent Court for issuing a Fresh Pass Port it is nothing but an Illegal, Unalwful, Violation of Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Violation of the Rulings of Apex Court as well as Central Government Rules Consequently, direct the 2'’"' respondent to Issue a Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner on applying without insisting any No Cbjection or anything without reference to the F.I.R. No. 52/2023 and F.I.R. No. 609/2021 on the file of Gannavaram P.S, Krishna District and pass such other order or orders ...” 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein applied for fresh passport before the 2"'^ respondent, but, the 2""* respondent issued a letter dated 02.12.2023 directing the petitioner to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ or Court Order for issuing such passport in the name of (3 the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is involved in criminal cases for which, F.I.R.No.52/2023 U/s.337 of I.P.C. as well as F.I.R. No.609/2021 on the file of Gannavaram Police Station were registered. 3. The further case of the petitioner herein is that pursuant to the crime registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R.No.609/2021, the complainant therein filed a memo informing that he intend to withdraw the case and does not have any objection in closing the matter. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner herein filed a Criminal Petition before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in the said FIR and the same is pending for Orders. Even though the crimes registered against the petitioner are in FIR stage itself. respondent No.2 is insisting the petitioner to obtain 'No Objection Certificate’ or Court Order for issuance of fresh passport to the petitioner. Flence, the present Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the passport is only a travel document and issuance of passport cannot be denied on the sole ground of pendency of criminal cases. He further submits that cases vide Cr.No.52/2023 U/s.337 of IPC and 609/2021 were registered against the petitioner on the file of Gannavaram Police Station. Charge sheet was filed in respect of Cr.No.52/2023, but the C.C. number is awaited. As such. Section 6 or Section r 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 wHI not apply to the petitioner in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of India and others.^ 6. Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 furnished written instructions issued by respondent No.4, wherein, it is stated that on verification of police station records, the petitioner is involved in a case vide Cr.No.52/2023, U/s.337 of IPC which was altered to 338 IPC of Gannavaram Police Station and the charge sheet is filed on 25.09.2023. C.C.No. is awaited. Another case No.609/2021, U/s.406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 r/w.34 IPC on the file of of Gannavaram Police Station is under investigation. He also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others^. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Home and also perused the material placed on record. MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26 09 2022 '2023 (3)AL0 213(AP) 8. It appears that the respondent No.2 is under the presumption that the petitioner herein is involved in serious criminal cases and he applied for issuance of passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that the said crimes were registered vide Cr.No.52 of 2023 on the file of Gannavaram P.S., where charge sheet is filed and awaiting for C.C. No. and another Crime No.609/2021 was under investigation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner is contrary to the law. 9. For more understanding. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is extracted hereunder; “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 or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— (a)that the applicant is not a citizen of India; (b)that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; [cjthat the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; [^that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; [ejthat the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in Indio for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (flthat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (glthat a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being In force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (hithat the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation (ijthat in the opinion of the Central Government the Issue of a passport travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. or 10. The issue of renewal and issuing of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose. It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. 11. 12. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: ^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023^ dated 03.10.2023 6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under: "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." 7. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC online SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others at para 4 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." Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and 13. the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. Further the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring to the criminal cases and issue the passport to the petitioner for a period of three years, if otherwise the application is in order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 14. This order shall not preclude the respondents from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other 15. purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary,' Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi. The Regional Pass Port Officer, Regional Pass Port Office, Vijayawada. The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Office, Vijayawada. The Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Gannavaram, Krishna District. One CC to Sri Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to Sri P. Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Cnr % HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 17415 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS