APHC010485842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24853/2025 Between: 1. NEMALIDINNE SUBBA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE,CHENNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. 37-1-413/8, RAMNAGAR,9TH LANE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, 23D JANPATH ROAD, RAJPATH AREA CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, INDIA 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVERNORPET, N.T.R. DISTRICT. M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520 00 4. THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, BRIDGE CENTRE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 JS, J W.P.No.24853 of 2025 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 an appropriate Writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioners passport renewal application vide Application No. VJA075369908325 dated 22.07.2025 (Ref. No. SCN/1049700830/25, dated 29.07.2025), on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to law violation of the principles of natural justice, and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and also contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act and Rules. Consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to renew the petitioners passport bearing No. M8741029, in terms of the judgment of this Honble Court in W.P. No.24621 of 2024, 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 pleased to pass Interim order directing the 3rd Respondent to consider my Passport renewal application, vide application No. JA075369908325 dated 22.07.2025 for renewal of my Passport bearing No. M8741029 until disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA REDDY YARADLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T NIRANJAN REDDY (ADD CGSC) 2. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 JS, J W.P.No.24853 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioner's passport renewal application vide Application No. VJA075369908325 dated 22.07.2025 (Ref. No. SCN/1049700830/25, dated 29.07.2025), on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to law violation of the principles of natural justice, and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and also contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and Rules. Consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to renew the petitioner's passport bearing No. M8741029, in terms of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.24621 of 2024, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” (in verbatim) 2. The petitioner’s passport expired on 07.05.2025. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of her passport on 22.07.2025, vide Application No. VJA075369908325. Pursuant to police verification, the 3rd respondent issued a letter, vide Ref. No. SCN/1049700830/25 dated 29.07.2025, seeking clarification regarding Crime No. 131 of 2018, on the file of Ongole II Town Police Station, Prakasam District. 4 JS, J W.P.No.24853 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed Crl.P. No. 6266 of 2022 before this Court, seeking quashment of the said crime. By an order dated 18.08.2022, this Court granted an interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No. 131 of 2018, on the file of Ongole II Town Police Station, Prakasam District. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not, by itself, constitute a bar to the renewal or re- issuance of a passport, and relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 34656 of 2022, wherein the Court categorically observed as follows: “19. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel, in our view, it is appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, as extracted hereinunder: Relevant provisions of issue and renewal of passports: Section 6(2): 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; 5 JS, J W.P.No.24853 of 2025 (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. The refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6(2)(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trail in a criminal court. The grounds on which the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is being refused could at best fall within Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. 20. Section 2(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, has been considered on several occasions by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and High Courts.” 6 JS, J W.P.No.24853 of 2025 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 4, and 5, on written instructions, submits that in view of the interim stay order dated 18.08.2022 granted by this Court, the case is still under investigation. It is further submitted that due to the pendency of the said crime, the petitioner’s passport has not been renewed and it is open to the Passport authorities to take an appropriate decision and pass suitable orders. 6. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in its order dated 04.02.2021 in W.P. No.20058 of 2020, held as follows: “As rightly held by this Court, in the decision cited supra, mere pendency of F.I.R. cannot be a legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular Passport the petitioner. Though the petitioner has approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, seeking issuance of Passport, this Court is unable to understand as to what prompted the petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, when no criminal case is pending against him. In any event, though ill-advisedly the petitioner had approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, nevertheless the first respondent cannot issue Passport to the petitioner only for a limited period of one year, which resulted in negation of right of the petitioner to have a regular Passport in order to secure employment abroad”. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and process the application made by the petitioner for re-issuance of passport, strictly as per the provisions of the Passports Act 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980, without reference to F.I.R. No.131 of 2018, on the 7 JS, J W.P.No.24853 of 2025 file of Ongole Il Town Police Station, Prakasam District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 23rd September, 2025 cbn 8 JS, J W.P.No.24853 of 2025 159 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WP No.24853 of 2025 23rd September, 2025 cbn