i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 194 OF 2025 p Between: Medapati Devi Manikanta Anjaneya Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged about 33 years, R/o. 16-3/1-8, Korada Street, Near Pyditalliamma Temple, Vijayanagaram, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi. 2. Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, Office at Murali Nagar Junction, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The State, Represented by its Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh. ...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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"^^ respondent in rejecting for renewal of passport with File No.VSA076789046524, dated 17.10.2024 with a reason that upon police verification report is not clear as the petitioner was involved in Criminal Case by directing to get a proof of clearance of criminal case is illegal, arbitrary, discriminating , unjust against to Article 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India against to the rules of Passport Act and consequentially direct the respondent to renew the passport by considering the application dated 16.07.2024 in File No.VSA076789046524 forthwith. 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 2"*^ respondent to renew the passport by considering the application dated 16.07.2024 in File No.VSA076789046524 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHETAN PONNURU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. APPARAO Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER / / APHC010003402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 194/2025 Between: Medapati Devi Manikanta Anjaneya Reddy AND ...PETITIONER The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1 1.CRETAN PONNURU Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.B APPARAO The Court made the following: / 2 ^ The Court made the following: 1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief; “...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly In the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^"^ respondent in rejecting renewal of passport with File NO.VSA076789046524 dated 17.10.2024 with one a reason that upon police verification report is not clear as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case by directing to get a proof of clearance of criminal case as illegal, arbitrary, discriminating unjust against Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India against the rules of Passport Act and consequently direct the 2^^ respondent to renew the passport by considering the application File No. VSA076789046524 dated 17.10.2024." 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. Petitioner herein is a passport holder bearing passport No.Z3299737 issued on 04.06.2015, dated 16.07.2024, the petitioner applied for renewal of the valid upto 03.06.2025. Vide application same. 4. Respondent No.2 herein had issued a letter dated 17.10.2024 seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport as it is evident from the police verification report that the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.470 of 2020 on the file of I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram and the is pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Viziana^ar&m vide STC No.58 of 2021. Though the petitioner had explained same with 2 1 3 regard to pendency of the criminal case, the 2"^ respondent did not consider for renewal of the passport. Hence, the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the complainant was lodged 5. based on false allegations and except that, there is no offence. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental right of 6. the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi v^s. Union oflndia^. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of india and others^. In view of 7. the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the 8. written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated 04.07.2024, wherein it is stated that as per the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, when a criminal case is pending against the applicant in any Criminal Court, the applicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection ^ 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 3 4 Certificate (NOC) from the Court below where case is pending along with GSR 570(E) undertaking. Hence, if the Court gives permission to the applicant to travel abroad and directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E). It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case^, the petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him. 9. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. 11. In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with various case law on the subject and passed a detailed order., the operative portion of which reads as follows:- (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected. (b) A direction is issued to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial. (c) On prQdi^tion of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 4 \ \ 5 \ pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993. a/ 12. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads follows:- as ‘9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court. The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f). ” 10. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when there is a pending proceedings before the Criminal Court after cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court. ” 11. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others'^, the Higher Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 13. 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: " W.P.No.25141 of 20.2^,_^ted 03.10.2023 5 6 / / "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." 1. 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. \ / ^ ! 14. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner, and renew his passport for a period of two (02) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide Crime No.470 of 2020 on the file of I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram and STC No.58 of 2021 before the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class Vizianagaram, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6 7 15. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad he shall obtain prior permission (NOC) from the Court concerned for such travel and shall V/ appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. \ 16. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from steps as are necessary to ensure the purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. taking such presence of the petitioner for any other 17. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SECTHOKI OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs Union of India, New Delhi 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, Office at Murali Nagar Junction, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station Pradesh. Vizianagaram, Andhra 4. One CC to Sri Chetan Ponnuru, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri B. Apparao, Advocate 6. Two CC’s to GP for Home 7. Three CD Copies. [OPUC] High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] ssb 7 \ \ - high court ,, DATED;22/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.194 of 2025 ilg 01 FEB 2025 Current Section ^ % i^SPATCVt^ disposing of the W.P. WITHOUT COSTS