APHC010359522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 18406/2025 Between: 1. SRI PEDDA GANGI REDDY THUMMALA,, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. GANGI REDDY THUMMALA, R/O. 1-72, C.B. ROAD, TADIPATRI, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515411. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. TADIPATRI TOWN PS, REP. BY ITS SHO, TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in non issuance of the passport of the Petitioner citing pendency of Crime.No.397 of 2023 dated 22.11.2023 on the file of Tadipatri Town P.S, Anantapuram District, Andhra Pradesh as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and the Passport Rules, 1980 and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to renew the passport of the Petitioner and further direct the Respondent No.2 herein to permit the petitioner to travel abroad and pass 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 may be pleased to direct the 2^^ Respondent to consider the application of the Petitioner for issuance of his passport and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALAKOTI SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B SURYANARAYANA The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 18406/2024 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief: “…to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in non issuance of the passport of the Petitioner citing pendency of Crime No.397 of 2023 dated 22.11.2023 on the file of Tadipatri Town, P.S., Anantapuram District, Andhra Pradesh as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and the Passport Rules, 1980 and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to renew the passport of the Petitioner and further direct the Respondent No.2 herein to permit the petitioner to travel abroad and pass such other order or orders ...” 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein applied for fresh passport vide application dated 16.01.2025 to the respondent No.2. While so, basing upon the police verification report, respondent No.2 issued impugned notice dated 21.05.2025 stating that the petitioner herein is involved in a criminal case vide Cr.No.397/2023 dated 22.11.2023 on the file of Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapuram District and the petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.3. But, the said criminal case is a false and foisted case. However, the said crime is pending for investigation and no charge sheet is filed till today. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not issuing the passport, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intend to go abroad and applied for passport. He further submits that a criminal case i.e., Crime Cr.No.397/2023 dated 22.11.2023 U/s.420 of IPC and 63-A of Copy Right Act, 1957 was registered against the petitioner on the file of Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapuram District but, so far, the charge sheet is not yet filed and investigation is also pending. 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.1 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 furnished written instructions, wherein, it is stated that on verification of police verification report, the petitioner is involved in a case vide Cr.No.397/2023, U/s.420 of IPC and 63-A Copy of Rights Act, 1957 on the file of Tadipatri Town Police Station and the case is under investigation. He further submits that the petitioner deliberately suppressed about the said criminal case. He also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others2. 1 MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022 2 2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP) 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader for Home and also perused the material placed on record. 7. 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 said crime was registered vide Cr.No.397/2023 dated 22.11.2023 on the file of Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapuram District and the same is pending for investigation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner is contrary to the law. 8. 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 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; (c)that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d)that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e)that 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; (f)that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g)that 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; (h)that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation (i)that 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. 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. 10. 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 others3, 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: 3 W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 "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 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." 12. 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. 13. Further the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case and issue passport to the petitioner for a period of three (03) 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. 14. 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 closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 30.07.2025 BSP 89 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.18406 of 2025 30.07.2025 BSP