APHC010352612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESjd AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADD^ WRIT PETITION NO: 17935 OF 2025 Between: Dikollu Raja Sekhar, S/o.Paskali, Aged about 35 years, Occ-Private Work, R/o.D.No.4-208, Tambi Nagar, Pedavutapalli Krishna District. ...Petitioner^ AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, O/o. Regional Passport Office, Floor, Stalin Centre, Vijayawada, NTR District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Vijayawada City, NTR District. 4. The Station House Officer, Unguturu Police Station, Unguturu, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District. 4th D.No.27-37-158, Governerpet, MG Road ...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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing the letter dated 20.05.2025 in not renewal of passport of the petitioner on the ground '.Z- that a suspect sheet is pending though there was no cases are pending against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to renewal the passport to the petitioner vide file No.VJ2077506627725, dated 22.03.2025 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 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner vide file NO.VJ2077506627725 for renewal of passport to the petitioner without reference to the suspect sheet pending with the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition, r' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B V ANJANEYULU ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO (SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT.) The Court made the following order: APHC010352612025 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: 17935/2025 Between: 1.DIKOLLU RAJA SEKHAR, S/O.PASKALI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4-208, TAMBI NAGAR, OCC-PRIVATE WORK, PEDAVUTAPALLI KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI. 2.THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 0/0. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, GOVERNERPET, MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRE, D.NO.27-37-158, 3.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, EAST ZONE,VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR DISTRICT. 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UNGUTURU POLICE STATION UNGUTURU, UNGUTURU MANDAL, 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing the letter dated 20.05.2025 in not renewal of passport of the petitioner on the ground that a suspect sheet is pending though there was no cases are pending against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution contrary to the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and set aside the of India and „ same and consequently direct the Respondents to renewal the passport to the petitioner vide file NO.VJ2077506627725, dated 22.03.2025 forthwith and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r may be pleased to direct the 2"^'^ respondent to consider the petitioner vide file NO.VJ2077506627725 for petitioner without reference to the may be pleased case of the renewal of passport to the suspect sheet pending with the 4*^^ respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.B VANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAQADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17935/2025 This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief: "...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction declaring the action of the 2""' Respondent in issuing the letter dated 20.05.2025 in not renewal of passport of the petitioner on the ground that a suspect sheet is pending though there was no cases are pending against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to renewal the passport to the petitioner vide file NO.VJ2077506627725 dated 22.03.2025 forthwith and to pass such other order or orders..." 1. or The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has passport bearing No.M7196104 and the same is expired on 14.04.2025. Hence, the petitioner made an application dated 22.03.2025 to the 2 respondent for renewal of the passport. Later, basing on the adverse police verification report, respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 20.05.2025 to the petitioner calling for explanation. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner herein submitted his explanation on 30.05.2025 informing that the cases pending against him are settled before Lok Adalat and no cases were pending against him. 2. nd The further case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 passed an order dated 18.11.2012 in C.No.129/ACP EZ/2012 and opened a suspect sheet against the petitioner basing on the Crime No.149/2012 before the 3. ^>3 respondent No.4. Even though the said crime was ended with compromise vide Lok Adalat award dated 06.12.2014, the suspect sheet is still continuing till date. In view of the continuation of suspect sheet against the petitioner, the respondents are not renewing the passport of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the suspect sheet, no cases were pending against the petitioner. Mere pendency of the suspect sheet against the petitioner cannot be a ground for denial for renewal of passport. As such. Section 6 or Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case. 4. 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.^ 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 14.07.2025, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner herein previously involved in criminal case and suspect sheet is opened against him. Later, the criminal cases were ended with compromise before the Lok Adalath. It is further stated that at present, there are no criminal cases pending against the petitioner but is active in such activities. Hence, the suspect sheet is being maintained against the petitioner. He also 6. ^ MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022 relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others^. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 7. Government Pleader for Home for the respondents and also perused the material placed on record. 8. It appears that the respondent No.2 is under the presumption that the petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal case and he applied for renewal of passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that the petitioner involved in certain criminal cases and the said cases were already settled before the Lok Adalath. Except suspect sheet, no cases were pending against the petitioner. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case. the action of respondent No.2 in not renewing/ re-issuing the passport to the petitioners 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 shali refuse to issue a passport or travei 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; ^ 2023(3) ALD213 (AP) Icjthat 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; [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; (hjthat 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. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 12. “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 innogent 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." ^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 13. Taking into consideration, the facts and ci the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court writ petition is disposed of. - circumstances of the case and 3s well as this Court, the present 14. Further the respondents 22.03.2025 of the petitioner without referring case and renew the passport of the petitioner for are directed to consider the application dated to the suspect sheet/ criminal a period often (10) 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. 15. This order shall not preclude the as are necessary to ensure the purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. respondents from taking such steps presence of the petitioner for any other Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SVi. RAIVIESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary to Government, Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Floor, Stalin Centre, Vijayawada, NTR District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner NTR District. 4. The Station House Officer, Unguturu Poiice Station, Mandal, Krishna District. 5. One CC to Sri B V Anjaneyulu Advocate 6. One CC to The Additional Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP for Home, 8. One CC to Sri Pamarthi Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies Union of India, Ministry of External O/o. Regional Passport Office, Governerpet, MG Road, 4th D.No.27-37-158, of Police, East Zone,Vijayawada City, Unguturu, Unguturu [OPUC] Solicitor General of India, High Court of High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Kameswara Rao (SC for Central. Govt.) TF high court DATED;29/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 17935 OF 2025 disposing of the W.P., WITHOUT COSTS