IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1046 OF 2025 ]. Between; Shaik Yashmin, W/o. Shaik Roshan, Aged about 34 years, Occ; House Wife, R/o. 5-11-126, 5**^ Ward, Chakali Veedhi, Giddaluru, Prakasam District, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, represented by Secretary, Passport and visa Division Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Regional Passport Officer, 4*'^ Floor, Stalin Central D.No.24-37-158 Gpvernorpet, MG Road, Vijayawada-620002, 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 be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of 2"^^ Respondent in Not Processing passport renewal application of the petitioner on account of pendency of Criminal cases (i) CC No. 208 of 2020 pending before the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Giddalur in which the section involved is 498(A) IPC as illegal, high handed and arbitrary apart from being in violation of petitioners rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently to direct the 2 petitione’s passport bearing No.M1693847 forthwith for a period of ten years. may nd Respondent to renew 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 petitioner's passport bearing No. M1693847 for a period often years without referring to the pendency of Criminal Cases pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. V. L. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: M/s. M. LIMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010014822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGAD DA WRIT PETITION NO: 1046/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Shaik Yashmin AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G VLMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ^ 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 declaring the action of the 2'^^ respondent in not processing passport renewal application of the petitioner on account of pendency of criminal cases C.C.No.208 of 2020 pending before the Add!. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Giddalur in which the section involved is 498(A) UOC 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 2 petitioner’s passport bearing nd respondent to renew No.Ml693847 forthwith for a period of ten years. The case of the petitioner is as follows; 2. Petitioner herein made an application dated 19.08.2024 for renewal of passport to the Regional Passport officer - Respondent No.2. 3. fresh 4. Respondent No.2 herein had issued letter No.SCN/319310425/24 dated 26.08.2024 seeking clarification regarding the issuance of passport, as it was evident from the police verification report that the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.79 of 2019 on the file of Giddalur Police Station, Prakasam District and registered as C.C.No.208 of 2020 pending on the file of Addt. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur. Though the petitioner had explained with regard to pendency of the criminal case, the 2 nd respondent did not consider for, renewal of the passport. Hence, the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the complainant was lodged based on false allegations and except that, there is no offence. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying renewal 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. 6. 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 india^. 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 7. the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the 8. written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated 04.07.2024, wherein it is stated that as per the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, 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 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 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 directs the Respondent Authorities to renew passport, the Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E). It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned Judge in Kadar Valli Sbaik’s Case^, the petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 10. Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with 11. various case law on the subject and passed a detailed order., the operative portion of which reads as follows:- (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstandingthe pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected. (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 productionjpLpn order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as 12. the same follows:- 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).” 9. 10. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when pending proceedings before the Criminal Court after 11. there is a cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court. ’’ In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others'^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 13. 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: " 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." 1. 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. 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 consider the application of the petitioner and renew passport for a period of two (02) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the criminal case viz. No.79 of 2019 on the file of Giddalur Police Station, Prakasam District and registered as C.C.No.208 of 2020 pending on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. Crime ivsisat Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, she shall obtain prior permission (NOC) from the Court concerned for such travel and shall before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. 15. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other 16. steps as are necessary purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 17. closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Passport and visa Division, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, 4*^ Floor, Stalin Central D.No. 24-37- 158, Governorpet, MG Road, Vijayawada-620002 Andhra Pradesh 3. One CC to Sri G. V. L. Murthy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s. M Uma Devi, Central Govt. Counsel [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.1046 of 2025 c» 13 MAR 2C:3 2 ^ Current Section . ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS