APHC010470592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24385/2025 Between: 1. BHIMANADHAM BHARAT REDDY, S/O. BHASKAR REDDY BHIMANADHAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC .BUSINESS R/O. D.NO. 8-24-34, SIMS GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS MANGALADAS NAGAR, GUNTUR-522001 ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK SECRETARIAT RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI INDIA 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, O/O THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VIJAWADA 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, ANJANEL, GOVERNOR PETA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520002 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, A.P,SECRETARIAT. OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, ...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 to issue Writ Order or direction more so in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare that the action of 2nd Respondent in refusing passport services to petitioner on account of pendency of Criminal case vide SC SPL 2 JS, J W.P.No.24385 of 2025 No. 125 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, as illegal, high handed and arbitrary apart from being in violation of petitioner's rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently to direct the 2nd Respondent to renew petitioner's passport bearing No. C6775294 forthwith for a period of ten years by considering the application made by the petitioner Vide application ref No. 25-1055464589 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 to Pending disposal of the above Writ Petition direct the Respondent No.2 to consider and process the application made by the petitioner Vide application ref No. 25-1055464589 for issuance/renewal of passport without reference to the pendency of Criminal Case for a period of 10 years and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHASKAR PREM KOUSHIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT 2. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 JS, J W.P.No.24385 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ Order or direction more so in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare that the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing passport services to the petitioner on account of pendency of Criminal Case vide SC SPL No.125 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, as illegal, high handed and arbitrary apart from being in violation of petitioner’s rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to renew petitioner’s passport bearing No.C6775294 forthwith for a period of ten years by considering the application made by the petitioner vide application ref No.25-1055464589 and pas such other order…” (in verbatim) 2. The petitioner is a passport holder. On 01.07.2025, the petitioner vide Application Reference No. 25-1055464589 applied for the renewal of his passport. Although the petitioner submitted a clarification on 25.8.2025, the 2nd respondent, without considering it, kept the matter pending; hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mere pendency of a criminal case is not a valid ground to deny the issuance or renewal of a passport and relies on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4 JS, J W.P.No.24385 of 2025 i) In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1, it is observed that the right to travel Abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone. ii) In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi2, it is held as follows: “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.” 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the 3rd respondent, submits that the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, has taken cognizance of the case in S.C.No.125 of 2022 and further adds that the petitioner may approach the competent jurisdictional court and make an appropriate application. 5. Learned counsel in reply submits he is ready to approach the competent court and prays for the disposal of the writ petition. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, and file an appropriate application for renewal of his passport. Upon filing such an application, the Sessions Court 1(1978) 1 SCC 248 22013 (15) SCC 570 5 JS, J W.P.No.24385 of 2025 shall pass an appropriate order, specifying the period, considering Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 16th September, 2025 cbn 6 JS, J W.P.No.24385 of 2025 253 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WP No.24385 of 2025 16th September, 2025 cbn