I APHC010560832024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i 5k •C' or X' o e o r TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29325 OF 2024 ■ Between: Kasturi Chandrasekhar, s/o K. Subbarayudu, Aged about 58 years D.No.87/13e8-4-R-C-31-32, Kurnool Dist. Siva Datta Nagar, NDK Road, Kurnool, ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union Of India, Ministry of External Affairs Rep. by its Secretary, 23-B, Janpath Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, 4th Floor, Stalin Central, D.No. 27-37, 158, Governorpeta, M.G. Road, Vijayawada. 3. The Director of General of Police, CHWV plus H8M Mangalagiri, Guntur District- 522502, A.P. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ...Respondents 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 a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not entertaining the petitioner passport application vide file No. VJ3076746518324 on the ground that criminal appeal is pending inspite of giving explanation that C.C.No.4 of 2017 was ended in acquittal as illegal. . #■ improper, unjust, arbitrary violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of the Passport. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 2nd respondent duly considering the passport application vide file No. VJ3076746518324 of the petitioner without reference to the Criminal Cases, pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4:GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010560832024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29325/2024 Between: AGED SIVA DATTA 1.KASTURI CHANDRASEKHAR, S/0 K. SUBBARAYUDU, ABOUT 58 YEARS, D.N0.87/13E8-4-R-C-31-32, NAGAR, NDK ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REP. BY RAJ PATH AREA, ITS SECRETARY, 23-B, JANPATH ROAD, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2.THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN GOVERNORPETA, M.G. ROAD, CENTRAL, D.NO. 27-37, 158 VIJAYAWADA. 3.THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE, CHWV PLUS H8M MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522502, A.P. 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...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 topleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not entertaining the petitioner passport application vide file No. VJ3076746518324 on the ground that criminal appeal is pending inspite of giving explanation that C.C.No.4 of 2017 was ended in acquittal as illegal. / 2 f» improper, unjust, arbitrary violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of the Passport and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 please to direct the 2nd respondent duly considering the passport application vide file No. VJ3076746518324 of the petitioner without reference to the Criminal Cases, pending disposal of the Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT 2.GP FOR HOME 3 f The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief: \ . .pleased to Issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2"^ respondent in not entertaining the petitioner passport application vide file No.VJ3076746518324 on the ground that criminal appeal is pending inspite of giving explanation that C.C.No.4 of 2017 was ended in acquittal as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice‘s and direct the 2”“^ respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of the Passport and pass... ” The case of the petitioner is that he made an application for renewal of his passport bearing No.J5071087, which had expired on 09.05.2021. Pursuant to the same, the respondent authority issued a letter vide Ref.No.SCN/319003155/2024, dated 12.08.2024, titled “Clarifications required regarding issuance of passport facilities to the petitioner.” The contents of the impugned proceedings state that respondent No.2 received an adverse Police Verification Report in relation to the petitioner’s passport, wherein it was /-. L stated that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case. It was further’stated that the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation along with the required documents to the Enquiry Officer at the Vijayawada Passport Office within 30 working days from the date of issuance of the notice. However, neither the Police Verification Report nor the show-cause notice reflects any details of criminal cases pending against the petitioner. 2. In response to the said letter, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 12.09.2024. wherein he stated that C.C.No.4 of 2017 was ended in 3. 4 acquittal on 25.02.2021. He further submitted that the prosecution has preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.931 of 2020 along with I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay of 617 days in preferring the criminal appeal. He contended that the prosecution has not provided any proper explanation for the de*^y of 617 days and, apart from preferring the said criminal appeal other cases are pending against him. The petitioner is aggrieved that despite his acquittal in C.C.No.4 of 2017, the respondents are still denying the renewal of his passport. , no 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of India and 1 others. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Central Government Counsel appearing for re^ondent Nos.1 & 2 relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others^. Heard learned counsel for the p)etitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Perused the material placed on record. 6. It appears that the impugned notice was issued by respondent No.2 on the premise that the petitioner is involved in a serious criminal case. However, 7. MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022 ^ 2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP) 5 the fact remains that the said case, registered as C.C.No.4 of 2017, ended in acquittal. 8. For more understanding, Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is extracted hereunder: “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; [cjthat the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India: (^that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India vdth any foreign country;^ [ejthat 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; [fjjhat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; .Cglthat a warrant or summons for the aooearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been ■ssued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting thej 6 0 dijpaiiure from India of the apjDiicant has been made by any such court; [h}that the applicant has been repatnated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation (ijthat in the opinion of the Centra' Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be In the ptfblic interest. 9. The issue of renewal of Passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the Act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose. 10. It is further observed that holding a Passport and freedom to go abroad has mucii social value significance. ana represents the basic human right of great In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^ the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows; 6.? The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v Stare of NCT of Delhi at para 13 obseived as under: "The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocept person, he is entitled to ail the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of mdia." The Division Bench of the Hon’ble 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: 11. 7. ^ W.P.No^5141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 "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." 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the present Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consic:|er the application of the petitioner vide file No.VJ3076746518324, without reference to the criminal appeal i.e., Crl.A.No.931 of 2020, and renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of three (3) yea^s. if the application is otherwise in order, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order This order shall not preclude resccnde'^t ^lo.2 from taking such steps as may be necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other lawful purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO assistan^egsstrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Externai Affairs 23-B UNION Guntur DlsthcN^IsS? A 4. The Superintendent of Police 5. One CC to Sri. Mahadeva ’ 6. One CC to Sri [OPUC] I Two CCS to GP For Home 8. Two CD Copies. OF INDIA 27-37, Mangalagiri, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Kanthrigala, Advocate fOPUCl Thenepalli Niranjan, SC FOR ^ Cential. Govt Advocate High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] AL • "J; <> HIGH COURT TL DATED:29/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 29325 OF 2024 .T'O M 2 0 SEP 2025 r'i <».• i's.Current ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS