APHC010351502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY cf TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE cf PRESENT ^ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17689 OF 2025 Between: Adari Ravi Kumar, S/o Adari Appa Rao, Aged about 51 years, R/o D.No.55-2- 10, near Ramalayam Temple, Old Venkojipalem, Visaldiapatnam-530 022. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, near P.F. Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem, Vuda Layout, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakhpatnam. ...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 or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of Respondent No.2 in renewing Petitioners passport vide bearing No.K3766188 through application vide bearing File No .VS 1074965782323 dated 12.01.2023 on the pretext of pending Crime in FIR No.52 of 2020 on the file of Respondent No.3 as null and void, dehors jurisdiction and ultra vires the vested powers, manifestly arbitrary, capricious, whimsical per se illegal, vindictive, unreasonable, contrary to purport of Passports Act, 1967 and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the Respondent No.2 to renew Petitioners Passport vide bearing NO.K3766188. IA 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 Respondent No.2 to renew Petitioner’s Passport vide bearing NO.K3766188 not with standing pending Crime in FIR No.52 of 2020 on the file of Respondent No.3. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI PELLETI RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010351502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) iL* [3329] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17689/2025 Between: Adari Ravi Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 3.PELLETI RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA . -7 WRIT PETITION NO: 17689/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- ‘‘..may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of Respondent No. 2 in renewing Petitioners passport vide bearing No.K3766188 through application vide bearing File No.VS1074965782323 dated 12.01.2023 on the pretext of pending Crime in FIR. No. 52 of 2020 on the file of Respondent No. 3 as null and void, dehors jurisdiction and ultra vires the vested powers manifestly arbitrary, capricious, whimsical per se illegal vindictive, unreasonable, contrary to purport of Passports Act, 1967 and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondent No. 2 to renew Petitioners Passport vide bearing NO.K3766188 and/or pass and/or pass.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that on the application submitted by the petitioner, the 2"'' respondent has issued passport in favour of the petitioner vide bearing File No.K3766188, dated 09.05.2012 and the same is valid upto 08.05.2022. Thereafter, several false criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and some of them are already closed. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of passport vide bearing File N0.VSI 074965782323, dated 12.01.2023 and Respondent No.2 issued letter of communication, dated 21.03.2023, thereby demanding the petitioner to attend enquiry to furnish clarification on the pending crimes. The petitioner attended enquiry on 24.03.2023, 3 12.04.2023 and 05.05.2023 and furnished explanation to Respondent No.2 requesting to renew his passport. Vide letter of communication, dated 31.01.2024, Respondent No.2 insisted the petitioner to attend his office again to furnish explanation and hence, the petitioner attended office on February, 2024 and July, 2024. But, the respondents failed to renew the passport of the petitioner on the pretext of pending crime and demanded the petitioner to secure permission from the competent criminal Court. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Nos.105, 114, 115 and 116 of 2025 before the II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) Court, Visakhapatnam for renewal of the passport and the same was allowed vide, order dated 26.06.2025 permitting for renewal of the passport for a period of three years. Further, Crl.M.P.No.160 of 2025 was withdrawn on nd 02.07.2025. Once again the petitioner approached the office of the 2 respondent on 27.06.2025 for renewal of the passport. But the same was not considered on the ground of pendency of Crime in F.I.R.No.52 of 2020. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner 3. has applied for renewal of the passport. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 is denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner which is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental 4. F right of 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 of India . Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the Judgment 5. passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024, dated 29.10.2024, wherein the Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the respondents therein to issue passport in favour of the petitioner therein. Relevant Paragraphs of the said Judgment read asfollows:- 18. In our opinion, the learned single Judge committed an error in law, in directing the appellant herein to approach the Court below where the charge sheet was filed, on an erroneous assumption that the dated 25.08.1993, bearing provisions of the notification. No.G.S.R.570(E), would be attracted inasmuch as the charge sheet had been filed in the Court below, without going into the question as to whether the Court below had actually taken cognizance on the charge sheet so filed. Reliance placed by the learned single Judge on the judgment rendered in the case of Khader Vali Shaik(supra) was also inapt. Furthermore, the Judgment referred to in the case of Parchuri Ashok Babu (supra) in fact, supported and buttressed the case of the 1978 AIR597 5 petitioner that Section 6(2)(f) would apply only when there proceeding pending before the criminal Court. was a 19. Be that as it may, we allow the present writ appeal, set aside the Judgment and order impugned dated 16.02.2024 and direct the respondents to issue the passport in favour of the appellant without any further delay. There shall be no order as to costs. 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 the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that as per the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, when a criminal 7. case is pending against the applicant in any Criminal Court, the applicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection 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. 8. ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, datedJO.02.2024 ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 6 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel 9. for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. h In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case{3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt 10. 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 production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere 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 11. disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as 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 '9. 7 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).” 11. 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. ” 12. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others'*, the 10. 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: 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. 13. 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: W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 8 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. As held by this Court, all the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment only. Moreover, considering the facts and circumstances of the case Crl.MP.Nos.105, 114, 115 14. and 116 of 2025 in pending trial cases i.e., C.C.Nos.448, 416, 385 and 286 of 2018 were allowed by common order, dated 26.06.2025, granting permission for renewal of the passport of the petitioner and Crl.M.P.No.160 of 2025 in pending Crime FIR.No.52 of 2020 was withdrawn on 02.07.2025. 15. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition with a direction to respondents to consider the application of the petitioner, and renew his passport for a period of three (03) years. 16. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring to F.I.R.No.52 of 2020 and renew his passport for a period of three (03) years. 9 this order shall not preclude the prosecution from takinr to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other 17. However, such steps as are necessary purposes. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be 18. no order as to costs. miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand Consequently closed. A « CJ.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, near P.F. Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem, Vuda Layout, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Visakhpatnam. 4. One CC to Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Pelleti Rajesh Kumar (Central Government Counsel) Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:21/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 17689 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS