APHC010350642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY ^^2) TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17771 OF 2025 K f* 0? o Between: Bandia Sarath Babu, S/o. late. China Bapaiah Retd. Secretary and Correspondent of R/o.H.No.5-3, Neelakantapuram, Mandal, Bapatia District. aged about 73 years, Occ. Bandia Bapaiah Hindu college, Sarada Nagar, Desaipeta, Vetapalem ...PETITIONE-R AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of External Affairs Secretariat Building, Raisina Hill, New Delhi-110001 2. The Joint Secretary PSP and Chief Passport Officer, Programme Division Ministry of External Affairs House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 4 Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governorpet 520002. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Baptia, Baptia District. South Block, Passport Seva Room No.27, Patiala th Floor, M.G.Road, Vijayawada- ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction praying that in the may be more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^^ Renewing petitioner’s Passport application vide No.VJ20772270563 24 19.12.2024 and releasing/issuing to the violative of principles of natural justice and Respondent in not dated petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and rules made thereunder and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents to forth with Renew petitioner’s passport and issue the passport in favour Of the petitioner. ^ jA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court direct the 3'" Respondent to Renew petitioner' in favour of the petitioner forthwith may be pleased to s passport as well as issue the pending disposal of the above writ same petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MD. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:THE ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERA OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: SALEEM APHC010350642025 .■t1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) mi [3329] f THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17771/2025 Between: 1.BANDLA SARATH BABU, S/0. LATE. CHINA BAPAIAH ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC. CORRESPONDENT OF R/O.H.NO.5-3, DESAIPETA, VETAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. AGED RETD. SECRETARY AND BANDLA BAPAIAH HINDU COLLEGE, NEELAKANTAPURAM SARADA NAGAR, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT BUILDING AFFAIRS HILL, NEW DELHI-110001 RAISINA 2.THE JOINT SECRETARY PSP AND CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT SEVA PROGRAMME EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ROOM NO.27, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG NEW DELHI-110001. 3.THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVERNORPET, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520002. 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPTLA, BAPTLA DISTRICT. DIVISION MINISTRY OF OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR ...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 may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to Renew 2 petitioners passport as well as issue the same in favour of the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such lA NO: 1 OF 202fi 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 3rd Respondent to Renew petitioner's passport as well as issue the same in favour of the petitioner forthwith of the above writ petition and to pass such pending disposal Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17771/2025 r ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief: “...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 3''^ respondent in not renewing petitioner’s passport application vide NO.VJ2077227056324 dated 19.12.2024 releasing/issuing to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and Rules made thereunder and also violative articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forth with renew petitioner’s passport and issue the passport in favour of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders...” and 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made an application dated 19.12.2024 seeking renewal of his passport. At the time of the interview the petitioner also informed that a false criminal case i.e., FIR No.202 of 2023 on the file of the Vetapalem Police Station, Baptia District erstwhile Prakasam District was registered against him. The 3'"^ respondent issued an order dated 27.12.2024 directing the petitioner to submit an explanation along with required documents. The petitioner personally went to the office of the 3'"'^ respondent and submitted his explanation stating that the said criminal case is a false one and the same was stayed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2025 in CRLP No.3954 of 2025. But the 3'^^ respondent not considered the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport and 4 directed the petitioner to obtain an order from the competent court. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal case i.e., FIR No.202 of 2023 on the file of the Vetapalem Police Station, Baptia District erstwhile Prakasam District was registered against the petitioner and the IS stayed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2025 in CRLP No.3954 of 2025. As such, Section 6 or Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will same not apply to the petitioner in the present 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar India and others.^ case. upon the judgment vs. The Union of 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others^. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, and the learned Government and also perused the material placed on record. to 3 relied upon a vs. Union of India, Counsel Pleader for Home 7. it appears that the respondent No.3 is under the presumption that the petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal case and he applied for renewal of passport. But, the fact remains that the said crime was registered Baptia same is pending for investigation. vide FIR No.202 of 2023 on the file of the Vetapalem Police Station, District erstwhile Prakasam District and the ' IVlANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022 dated 2023 (3)ALD213 (AP) 26.09.2022 ■"■N. 5 K, Further, this Court stayed the said crime case vide order dated 10.04.2025 in CRLP No.3954 of 2025. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case 0 the action of respondent No.3 in not renewing/re-issuing the passport to the petitioner is contrary to the law. For more understanding. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is 8. 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 India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (fjthat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; [gjthat 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; [hjthat the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation (llthat in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. 6 9. 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. 10. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^ the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 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: 11. "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 ^ W.P.No.25141 Of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 7 the scope of his experience. The right giso extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which 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 the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the present writ petition is allowed. Further the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case and renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of three(3) 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. This order shall not preclude the respondents from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand are 12. 13. 14. closed. Sd/- RAMESH BABU DEPUTY^ REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE FFICER To, of External Affairs, Union of India, South Block, Secretariat 1. The Ministry Building, Raisina Hill, New Delhi-110001 2. The Joint Secretary PSP and Chief Passport Officer, Passport Se^ Programme Division Ministry of External Affairs Room No.27, Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001. Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 4th Floor, 3. The Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada 520002. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Baptla, Baptla DistricJ^ 5. One CC to Sri Md. Saleem, Advocate [OPUC] Additional Solicitor General of India, High Court of A.P^ 6. One CC to the at Amaravati[OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:24/07/2025 5 ^ ^ AUG 2025 ^ Current Section >;5£^PATCH€$.r^ ORDER WP No. 17771 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS