IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUAR TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29307 OF 2024 Between; Bhavana Durga Bhavani, W/o. Bhavana Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu, Aged about 61 years R/o. 74-19-3, Ayyappa Nagar, Opp Chaitanya Techno School, Vijayawada, NTR District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep by its Ministry of External Affairs, South Block Secretariat Building, Raisina Hill, New Delhi, 110001: 2. The Joint Secretary PSP and Chief Passport Officer, Passport Seva Programme Division Ministry of External Affairs,Room No 27 Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, 110001. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office ^ Office Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem VUDA Lay out NAD Post, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, 530009. 4. The Passport Officer, Passport Seva Kendra Hotel MidCity, Opposite All India Radio M G Road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, 520010. 5. The Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate Vijayawada. 6. The Station House Officer, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City. ...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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 4 in not granting/ Renewal of the passport in favour of the petitioner application vide No VJ2076949090124 dated 19.09.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and may violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and rules thereunder and also violative of Article 14 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue the passport in favour of the petitioner. lA f40: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction, direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to grant issue the renewal of passport in favour of the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI YARRAMSETTY VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010558422024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) s [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29307/2024 Between: Bhavana Durga Bhavani ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YARRAMSETTY VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT 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 Respondent No. 4 in not granting/issuing renewal of the passport in favour of the petitioner application vide NO.VJ2076949090124 dated 19.09.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and Rules thereunder and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue the passport in favour of the petitioner. ” The case of the petitioner is as follows: 2. Petitioner herein is a passport holder bearing passport No.M5898619 3. issued on 30.01.2015, valid upto 29.01.2025. Vide application NO.VJ2076949090124dated 19.09.2024, the petitionerapplied for renewal of the same. Respondent No.2 herein had issued letter dated 16.10.2024 seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport as it is evidentfrom the police verification report that the petitioner has been involved in various criminal cases viz.. Crime No.48 of 2024 on the file of Patamata Police Station. Though the petitioner had explained with regard to pendency of the criminal case, the 2 respondent did not consider for renewal of the passport. Hence, the writ petition. 4. nd T Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the complainant was lodged based on false allegations and except that, there is no offence. He further subm**^^"'^ that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteedunderArticles 19 and 21 of the Constitutionof India. 5. 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 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 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 8. ^ 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 abroad and directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E). 9. 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 C.C is pending against him. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case{3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with various case law on the subject and passed a detailed order., the operative portion of which reads as follows;- 11. (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected. on (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. ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, datea't)?,g3.2023 12. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022 the same vide orders dated follows;- a learned Judge of this Court 28.09.2022, the relevant disposed of portion of which reads p~.s aLr would be depend on no objection be nd civen Z The Central Government Zl etZ7f ^ Z Court. 25.08.1993 stipulating that nTo objeiZnT ZZ dated Coud only If it falls within the ambit of SecZn 6(m^ ^ cognizance is taken, it would ha\^ to be held tLt pending criminal proceeding before the Court 04.02.2021 Information Report, regular passport to the petiiionZr taken by an 10. 11. 13. In Narige Ravindranath Court for the State of Telangana held v's. The Union of India as follows: 570 m ZZ IZ^VZaiZZ^TTZelhl "t under: Delhi at para 13 observed as P^oved'^AsTpresur^abb7nn7c^^^ /^^ocenf till his guilt Is the fundamental rights includinn thf entitled to all under Article 21 of the Constitution %Z^9h,ent dated :sz:rz.f character of the individual " W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03 and others^, the Higher ^ right self-determining creative only by extending his freedoms : not 10.2023 The right also f' l^sic humanities which can be friendship which are th b affected through refusal oi u freedom is a genuine human right. inclined to dispose of consider the application of of three (03) years to the criminal case this Court is settled legal position Respondent No.2 to In the light of the 14. direction to the writ petition with a the petitioner, and renew accordance with law, without raising any the file of in for a period objection relating Patanrata Police Station, within two (02) her passport No.48 of 2024 on viz., Crime weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. from taking such for any other preclude the prosecution of the petitioner this order shall not to ensure the presence However, 15. are necessary steps as purposes. There shall be no Consequently, miscellaneous order as to costs. if any, shall stand applications pending 16. Sd/- SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTR^ closed. //true copy// OFFICER i, I SE' To, , South Block, Secretariat 1. The Ministry of External Affgm, unton of India Building, Raisina Hill, New VUDA Lay out NAD Post, v.s n Opposite ;jl1nMo°ri^Ro«ySa,^Sra Pradesh, 520010 r 5. The Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate,Vijayawada. 6. The Station House Officer, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City. 7. One CC to Sri Yarramsetty Venkatesh, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Thenepalli Niranjan, SC for central. Govt. [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) lO.Three C.D. Copies. / Cnr HIGH COURT A DATED:29/01/2025 ORDER I 0 6 FEB 2025 Current Section . ^ WP.No.29307 of 2024 DISPOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS