::1:: APHC010566502024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29505/2024 Between: Shaik Abdul Wahid ...PETITIONER AND The Regional Passport Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P VIJAYA KUMARI(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) ::2:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NIMMAGADA VENKATESWARLU W.P.No.29505 of 2024 This Court made the following ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “…to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in not considering the passport renewal application of the Petitioner vide Application No.VJ2066305300324, dated 27.02.2024 due to 1 pending criminal case as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also against The Passports Act, 1967 and Rules therein and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to issue passport to the Petitioner as per the judgments rendered by this Hon’ble A.P High Court in W.P.Nos.10166/2024, 7714/2022. 9356/2023 and W P No.1392/2023 and batch and pass…” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner herein applied for passport by way of an online application bearing No. VJ2066305300324, dated 27.02.2024 to the Respondent No.1 by enclosing all necessary documents along with application. The Respondent No.1 issued a communication by way of letter vide Ref.No.SCN/317383303/24, dated 15.03.2024 informing the Petitioner that after investigation the police authorities submitted an adverse report against him and directed him to submit the required explanation along with relevant documents. ::3:: 4. Petitioner submits that a false case was registered against him on the complaint of one Pinniboina Sambrajyam with all false allegations. The same was registered as FIR No.65/2012 of Nagarampalem PS of Guntur District U/s 419, 420 IPC. In the said case the Petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.2. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner and other accused in C.C.No.454/2018 before the Hon’ble Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Guntur, Guntur District for the ofences punishable U/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC. 5. In pursuance of the above said letter of Respondent No.1, the Petitioner submitted his explanation with all supporting documents to the Respondent No.1. Subsequently, the Respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 29.11.2024 to the Petitioner stating that due to a case pending against the Petitioner, it is not possible to issue passport to the Petitioner and further informed to obtain permission to travel abroad from the Honb’le Court where the criminal proceedings are pending. Hence the Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go ::4:: 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 India1. 7. 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 others2. In view of the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport. 8. It is observed that as per Police Verification report, the petitioner / applicant was cited as an accused in the Nagarampalem P.S of Guntur vide Cr.No.65/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and it is pending for trial before Hon’ble Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Guntur, Guntur District vide C.C.No.454/2018. As the petitioner suppressed the information about criminal case, the Respondents had issued a show cause notice vide SCN/317383303/24, dated 15.03.2024. Since no explanation received from the petitioner, the Respondent issued another notice dated 29.11.2024. But till date no explanation was received from the Petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submits 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 1 1978 AIR 597 2 W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 ::5:: 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). 10. It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case3, the petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents and perused the material placed on record. 12. 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:- (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, 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. 3 W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 ::6:: (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. 13. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of2020 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. 10. 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).” 11. 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.” 14. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others4, 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 State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under: 4 W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 ::7:: "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." 15. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.1 to consider the application of the petitioner and issue passport to the petitioner for a period of two (2) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Cases vide C.C.No.454/2018 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Mobile, Guntur, Guntur District, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 16. Further, if the petitioner intend to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission/NOC from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. ::8:: 17. 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 purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt:22.01.2025 krk ::9:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 75 WRIT PETITION No.29505 of 2024 22nd January, 2025 krk