APHC010372572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19408 OF 2025 Between: Karri Veera Raghava Reddy, S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 44 years. R/o. Plot No. 50, 51P, Srinivasa Nagar, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. Near Sun School, ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, Office near PF Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District Andhra Pradesh. 3. The State House Officer, Vizianagaram II Town Police Station Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. NAD Post, ...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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting for renewal of passport with File No. VSA076741295524, dated 11.07.2024 with a reason that upon police verification report is not clear as the I, ■■ Criminal Case by directing to get a proof of /petitioner was involved in ^ clearance of criminal case is illegal, arbitrary, discriminating, unjust against to 21 of Constitution of India against to the rules of Passport Act Article 14, 19 consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to renew the passport by considering the application dated 11.07.2024 in File No.VSA076741295524 and 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 2"^ respondent to renew the passport by considering the application dated 11.07.2024 in File No.VSA076741295524 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHETAN PONNURU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:SRI G. SAI NARAYANA RAO, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: f APHC010372572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0ES [3329] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19408/2025 Between: 1. KARRI VEERA RAGHAVA REDDY, S/0. SATYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/0. PLOT NO. 50, 51P, SRINIVASA NAGAR, NEAR SUN SCHOOL, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, OFFICE NEAR PF OFFICE, BESIDE RYTHU BAZAR, MARRIPALEM VUDA LAYOUT, NAD POST, ANDHRA PRADESH. VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 3.THE STATE HOUSE OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM II TOWN POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM 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 topleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting for renewal of passport with File No. VSA076741295524, dated 11.07.2024 with a reason that upon police verification report is not clear as the petitioner was involved in Criminal Case by directing to get a proof of 2 clearance of criminal case is illegal, arbitrary, discriminating , unjust against to Article and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to renew the passport by considering the application dated 11.07.2024 in File No. VSA076741295524 forthwith and to pass 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 Fligh Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to renew the passport by considering the application dated 11.07.2024 in File No. VSA076741295524 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CHETAN PONNURU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.G SAI NARAYANA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT. The Court made the following: - 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India against to the rules of Passport Act yr^cj- ■ - 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19408/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"^ respondent in rejecting for renewal of passport with File NO.VSA076741295524 dated 11.07.2024 with a reason that upon police verification report is not clear as the petitioner was involved in criminal case by directing to get a proof of clearance of criminal case is illegal, arbitrary, discriminating, unjust against to Article 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India against to the rules of Passport Act and consequentially direct the 2"^ respondent to renew the passport by considering the application dated 11.07.2024 in File No. VSA076741295524 forthwith and pass such other order. ” The brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made an application dated 11.07.2024 seeking for renewal of the passport. The 2'^'^ respondent 2. kept the application of the petitioner in abeyance on the ground that a criminal case i.e., Cr.No.325 of 2017 on the file of the 3'^'^ respondent was registered against the petitioner and the same is pending before the Special Judicial II nd Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram vide STC.NO.2075 of 2017. Further the 2 respondent issued a notice dated 20.06.2025 directing the petitioner to furnish acquittal order/quash orders/No Objection Order (NOC) from the concerned Court as per the Gazette Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. The respondents cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for renewal of the passport. He further submits that Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 the Respondent in denying the renewal/re- issuance 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. Hence the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental 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 lndia\ 5. 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/re issuance of the passport 6. On the other hand, Sri G.Sai Narayan Rao, Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993 learned Central that as per the 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 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 ^ 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P,No.419S Gf.2024, dated 20.02.2024 5 directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents wilt comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E). 7. Learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.3 furnished written instructions dated 28.07.2025, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is involved in Cr.No.325/2017 under Section 9(1) APG Act and the pending on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram vide STC No.2075 of 2017. Moreover it is not cognizable case but only a compoundable case. same is It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned Judge in Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case^, the petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him. 8. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Sai Narayan Rao, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3 and also perused the material placed on record. 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:- 10. (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to tjie 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. on ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 6 (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 reguirements 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 follows:- 11. ‘9. 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. ’’ 10. 11. '■ / 7 0 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 12. 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." 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 8 13. 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 application of the petitioner, and consider the renew his passport for a period of two (02) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to STC No.2075 of 2017 before the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, date of receipt of copy of this Vizianagaram. within two (02) weeks from the order. 14. However, this order shall not preclude the steps as are necessary to ensure the purposes. prosecution from taking such presence of the petitioner for any other 15. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ASSISTANT registrar //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem VUDA Union of India, New Delhi. . Office near PF Office, Layout, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District Andhra Pradesh. 3. The State House Officer, Vizianagaram II Town Police Station Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. One CC to Sri Chetan Ponnuru, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra 6. One CC to Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, Central Govt. 7. Two CD Copies. Pradesh [OUT] Counsel [OPUC] ssb HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 ORDER WP No.19408 OF 2025 IT 2 9 AUG 2025 >>JCyfrentSectigp^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS