IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA-H^f^~=^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUAR^ m @ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE c ;/ li PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17859 OF 2024 Between: Meda Gurudutt Prasad, S/o Late Venkata Bhoja Ratnam, aged about 63 years vari Street, Near Gantalamma Temple, Rajamahendravaram Urban, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. old, R/o Mummidi ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Near P.F. Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530009 2. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi, 3. The Station House Officer, Kakinada II Town, L & O Police Station, East Godavari District(Kakinada District), Andhra Pradesh. {R3 is impleaded as per Court's Order dt. 22/01/2025 in lA 2/2024.) •j ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 in withholding the Petitioner's Passport bearing No. Z6910737 dated 09-02-2023 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and if is further consequentially prayed tlrat this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to forthwith more release the Passport of the Petitioner bearing No. Z6910737 dated 09-02-2023 in order to enable him to travel abroad after obtaining the due permission from the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate cum II Additional Civil Judges Court, Kakinada. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to forthwith release the Passport of the Petitioner bearing No. Z6910737 dated 09-02-2023 in order to enable him to travel abroad after obtaining the due permission from the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate cum II Additional Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SANKU DURGA RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: MS. ALEKHYA TADASINA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER / APHC010349562024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17859/2024 Between: Meda Gurudutt Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The Regional Passport Officer and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT{S) 1.SANKU DURGA RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR HOME 2.ALEKHYA TADASINA(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: r The Court made the following: f 1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: ...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one the action of in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring Respondent No.1 in withholding the petitioner’s passport bearing No.Z6910737 dated 09.02.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be to forthwith reelase the passport of the petitioner bearing No.Z6910737 09.02.2023 in order to enable him obtaining the due permission from the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-ll Additional Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada. pleased to direct Respondent No.1 dated to travel abroad after II Additional 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows; 3. Petitioner herein is a passport holder bearing passport No. Z6910737. application No.Z6910737 dated 09.02.2023, the petitioner Vide applied for renewal of the same. 4. Respondent No.2 herein had issued letter No.SCN/314689551/23 dated 25.04.2023 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 Crime No.9 of 2020 vide C.C.No.324 of 2021 pending the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate on Kakinada. Though the petitioner had explained with 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 vs. 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, 20.02.2024 Certificate (NOC) from the Court below where case is pending along with GSR 1 570(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). 9. 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. 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 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 production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere on ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 T— pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993. 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 as 12. follows:- 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). ” 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. ” In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others'^, the Higher Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 9. 10. 11. 13. Q 7/70 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 2023, dated 03.10.2^3 "The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt 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 observed as under: IS f para 4 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. \ I \ \ I 1 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 Crime No.9 of 2020 and C.C.No.324 of 2021 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. case intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior concerned for such travel and shall appt Further, if the petitioner permission (NOC) from the Court before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. 15. r However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such of the petitioner for any other 16. necessary to ensure the presence steps as are purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 17. / closed. SD/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Near Rythu Bazar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam, Andhra 1. The Office, Beside Pradesh - 530009 Government, Union of India, Ministry of External 2 The Secretary to Affairs, South Block, New Delhi 3. The Station House Officer, Kakinada II Town L and O Police Station, East Godavari District(Kakinada District), Andhra Pradesh. 4. One CC to Sri Sanku Durga Ramachandra Rao Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to M/s. Alekhya Tadasina (Central Govt Counsel) Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies TF Y HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2025 ORDER oTandh^:^ X 10 FEB 2025 ^ Current oecuon ^ WP.No.17859 of 2024 % Co O '^7 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS