% fS \ i APHC010378482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGAD DA WRIT PETITION NO: 19485 OF 2025 Between: Kommoju Devendra Gayathri Varaprasad, S/o K. Satyanarayana, Aged about 40 years, R/o Dr. No. 1-44, Chinna Bazar Street, Kunkalamarru, Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Amaravati. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, O/o Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Karamchedu P.S., Bapatala District, Andhra Pradesh. ...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 more particularly, one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not issuing passport to the Petitioner in pursuant to his Tatkaal application in File No. VJ1075341977125 dated 16.07.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from Provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the Respondents to issue a fresh passport to the Petitioner without any reference to the pending crime. 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 Respondents to issue a passport to the Petitioner pursuant to his Tatkaal application in File No. VJ1075341977125 dated 16.07.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3:SRI V. VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010378482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) B50 [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19485/2025 Between: 1.KOMMOJU DEVENDRA GAYATHRI VARAPRASAD, S/O K. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/0 DR. NO. 1-44, CHINNA BAZAR STREET, KUNKALAMARRU, PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATI. 3.THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 0/0 REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARAMCHEDU P.S. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. BAPATALA ...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, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not issuing passport to the Petitioner in pursuant to his Tatkaal application in File No. VJ1075341977125 dated 16.07.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 19 and 21 of Constitution of india apart from Provisions of Passport Act ,hI L!'; Respondents to issue a fresh passport to the Petitioner without any reference to the pending crime and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2()9fi in the'"!™ "TnZ “^cumstances stated in the aff davit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to issue a passport to the Petitioner 1^07^00!° application in File No. VJ1075341977125 dated Id.07.2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. VVENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: r 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19485/2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief; 1. “...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondents in not issuing passport to the petitioner in pursuant to his Tatkaal application in File No. VJ1075341977125 dated Illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and 16.07.2025 as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from Provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the respondents to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner without any reference to the pending crime and to pass such other order or orders...” The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made an application dated 16.07.2025 seeking renewal of his passport. But the same was rejected on the pretext that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. While so, the petitioner verified the status of the application, wherein it is reflected that a show cause notice dated 18.07.2025 was issued, but the petitioner has not received any of such notice. Hence, the present Writ 2. Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s brother’s wife lodged a complaint under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 498-A of IPC) and the same was registered as Cr.No.126/2024 on the file of Karamchedu Police Station. Charge sheet was filed on the file of JFCM Court, 3. 4 <1 Pachuru. but the C.C. number is awaited and so far no cognizance is taken. As such, Section 6 the petitioner in the present 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar India and others.^ or Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to case. relied upon the judgment vs. The Union of 5. Learned Government Pleader for Home furnished dated 24.07.2025 issued by the 4‘^ respondent written instructions wherein it is stated that a crime case i.e., Cr.No. 126/2024 under Section 108, 85 r/w 3(5) BNS 3 & 4 of D.P. Act on the file of Karamchedu P.S. petitioner and four others. In the said criminal Sections was registered against the case, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.5. after detailed investigation, charge sheet file of JFCM Court. Pachuru on 17.04.2025 and the C.C. number i was filed on the - IS awaited. Government Counsel for petitioner deliberately suppressed upon a judgment rendered by this Court i/s. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New 6. Sri M.Venkata Nagaraju, learned Central Respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that the about the crime case. He also relied in Kadar Valli Shaik Delhi and others^ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Venkta Nagaraju. learned Central Government Counsel for Respondent learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent perused the material placed on record. 7. Nos.1 and 3, and the Nos.2 and 4 and also ' MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022 dated 26 2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP) 09.2022 If 5 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. The fact remains that the said crime was registered vide FIR No. 126 of 2024 on the file of the Karamchedu Police Station and the same was filed on the file of JFCM Court, Pachuru and the C.C. number is awaited. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, 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. 9. 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 6 cf time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India 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 [jlthat 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. 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 significance. of 10. 11. right of great 12. 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 under: as "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 ^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 7 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 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 13. 14. 15. closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, O/o Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Karamchedu P.S., Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri Singamsetty V.M. Sankar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri V. Venkata Naga Raju, Central Govt. Counsel [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 ORDER WP No.19485 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS