IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA^'^ WRIT PETITION NO: 27843 OF 2024 Between: Hemanth Yelugubanti, S/o. Y.Hari Babu, aged 3,3 years, Occ Employee, residing at D.NoiFlat No.501, Sri Lakshmi Prasad Towers, Dr.Paturi Rama Rao Street, Currency Nagar, Vijayawada - 521 108. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, represented by Secretary (CPV and OIA), Ministry of External Affairs, Office at 23-D, Janpath Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 110 001 Email secycpv@mea.gov.in 2. Central Passport Organization (CPO), represented by Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport Officer, PSP Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Office at Room No.8, Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 Email jscpo@mea.gov.in 3. The Regional Passport Office, represented by Regional Passport Officer, Office at D.No.8-2-215 to 219, Kummarguda, Secunderabad, Telangana, 500003. Email rpo.hyderabad@mea.gov.in / po.hyderabad@passportindia.gov.in 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Spl. Public Prosecutor, C.I.D., High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District - 522238 Email adgcid@ap.gov.in ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith be pleased to issue an order, writ or directions, more particularly one in the the High Court may nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring inordinate delay being caused by the respondent no.2 and 3 for renewal of my passport bearing no.L4101518, vide Application No.HY1076810280924 dated 02.08.2024 as ^,being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 . and rules therein and unconstitutional and consequently direct respondent nos.2 and 3 to 02.08.2024 made for renewal expeditiously as possible. process application no.HYl 076810280924 dated passport bearing no. L4101518 as lA NO: 1 OF 2C)9d 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 3'’'^ respondent to consider the petitioner dated 18.09.2024- representations of the 07.10.2024; 24.09.2024; 18.10.2024 and 22.10.2024 made in connection with the application for renewal of passport no.L4101518 vide Application No. HY1076810280924 dated 02.08.2024 pending disposal of the above 14.10.2024; writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI V. VENKATA NAGA RAJU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.4:- The Court made the following: ORDER T|P« APHC010537042024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 27843/2024 Between: Hemanth Yelugubanti ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VVENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 27843/2024 t ORDER: This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief; "...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring inordinate delay being caused by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for renewal of petitioner’s passport bearing No.L4101518, vide Application No.HY1076810280924, dated 02.08.2024 as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and Rules therein and consequently direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to process application No.HY1076810280924, dated 02.08.2024 made for renewal passport bearing No.L4101518 as expeditiously as possible and to pass such other order or orders...’’ The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner had a passport bearing No.L4101518 and the same is valid upto 18.08.2023. After expiry of the same, the petitioner made an application along with all the requisite documents for renewal of the passport. Later, the petitioner’s application was forwarded for police verification and the concerned police officials sent police verification report to the 3'"^ respondent. Even after receipt of the police verification report, the 3'^^ respondent did not process the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 3'^'^ respondent and requested for further processing of the application. The petitioner also informed to the 3'"* respondent about the criminal proceedings registered against him. Two criminal cases i.e., C.C.No.660 of 2022 on the file of the II 1. 2. 3 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Kakinada on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner filed Criminal Nos.5639 of 2022 & 2418 of 2022 the two criminal cases as stated and P.R.C.No.2 of 2022 Vijayawada Petition on the file of this Court seeking to quash supra, wherein this Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings. The respondent neither issued any show-cause notice to the petitioner nor processed the application of the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for renewal of passport. Moreover, this Court stayed the all further proceedings pursuant to the two criminal cases filed against the petitioner. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.3 in not accepting the representations submitted by the petitioner and not processing the petitioners application for renewal/re-issuance of the passport is nothing but infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 an and 21 of the Constitution of India. 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 heid in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in Nianeka Gandhi vs. Union of lndia\ 1978 AIR 597 4 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 5. the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that as 6. 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 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 issue 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 Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case^, the petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the criminal cases are pending against him. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 8. Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case{3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with 9. 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 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 5 compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the 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 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 requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of 10. the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as 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). ” 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. ” '9. 10. 11. 6 In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others'^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 11. 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: '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 7 In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to respondents to consider the application of the petitioner, and renew his passport for a period of three(3) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Cases i.e.., C.C.No.660 of 2022 on the file of the 11 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and P.R.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, if the petitioner intend to travel abroad, he shall obtain NOC from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other 12. 13. 14. purposes. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no 15. order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 16. closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRY I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The secretary (CPV and OIA), Ministry of Externai Affairs, Union of Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, 1 India, Office at 23-D, Janpath New Delhi 110 001 Email secycpv@mea.gov.in Chief Passport Officer, Central Passport , Ministry of External Affairs, Office at 2. The Joint Secretary (PSP) and Organization (CPO), PSP Division No.8, Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 Email Room jscpo@mea.gov.in Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Office at D.No.8-2-215 to 219, Kummarguda, Secunderabad, Telangana, 500003. Email rpo.hyderabad@mea.gov.in / po.hyderabad@passportindia.gov.in 4. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, C.I.D., High Court of Andhra Pradesh, State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District - 522238 Email adgcid@ap.gov.in 5. One CC to Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] Sri V Venkata Naga Raju(Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC] 3. The 6. OneCCto 7. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 ^ 2 0 JAN 2025 M ^ . Current Section ^***!5ss£tSPATCVV^r^' ORDER WP.No.27843 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS