IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29739 OF 2024 Between: Gopalkrishna Verna, S/o Venkata Narasimha Rao Verna, age 34 years, Occ: Business, 15/1, Pedda Bazar, Kanchilacherla, Kanchikacherla , NTR District 521180 ...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 Center, Door No. 27-37- Vijayawada-520002 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 writ or order, one particularly in the nature of mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not processing application dated 05.11.2024 for renewal of Passport on the ground of pending criminal cases as illegal, improper, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 14,19 & 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the Respondents to renew Passport. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 may 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 consider the application for renewal of Passport of the Petitioner dt.05.11.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI VENKATESWARLU GUNDUBOINA (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER ::1:: APHC010569902024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29739/2024 Between; Gopalkrishna Verna ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATESWARLU GUNDUBOINA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) ■/ ;;2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29739/2024 The Court made the following: ORDER: This instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioner claiming the following relief: “..to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one :.-j the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not processing application dated 05.11.2024 for renewal of Passport on the ground of pending criminal cases as illegal, improper, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the Respondents to renew Passport and pass .. The case of the petitioner is as follows: (a) The petitioner filed an application dated 05.11.2024 to the 2 Respondent through online, for renewal of Passport. Police verification was done. However Petitioner’s passport application online status shown as ‘Police Verification Report is not clear and application is under review at Regional Passport Office". The Petitioner immediately approached the Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada and enquired about the same and he asked to bring the details of the pending cases and disposed cases as in 2. nd was well. “ N. 3 (b) The Petitioner obtained the certificate from the Police Station, Kanchikacherla and submitted the same to the Regional Passport Office on 22.11.2024. Despite of submitting the same, to the utter shock of the Petitioner, Respondents issued a letter vide Ref No. SCN/320106283/24, dated 27.11.2024 seeking explanation of the Petitioner on pending criminal cases against him basing on the adverse Police Verification Report received. I Petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities that his application could not be processed and passport cannot be issued in view of the pending criminal cases. Learned counsel finally submits that if the passport is not renewed, career of the petitioner would be in trouble. Hence (c) the writ petition. (d) Learned counsel for the petitioner further 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 lndia\ 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 (e) ^ 1978 AIR 597 ‘ - :4 others^. In view of the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for 1^- renewal of the passport. On the other hand, Sri Venkateswarlu Gunduboina, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 furnished the written instructions issued by the Respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that the petitioner herein had applied for re-issue of passport bearing No.K4774567 vide file No.VJ2077089185924 on 05.11.2024. The file has been processed under pre-police verification basis. 5. It is further stated that as per Police Verification report, the petitioner / applicant is involved in two Criminal Cases viz., (1) Cr.No.940/2020 U/s 326, 341, 307 r/w 34 IPC, Sections 3(1)(s)(za) & Sections 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 of Kanchikacherla PS, and the case is PT on the file of Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs and STS (POA) Act, 1989-cum-X Additional District Judge Court, Machilipatnam and (2) Cr.No.101/2021 U/s 110(E) CrPC of Kanchikacherla PS and the Petitioner was bind over before MEO As the petitioner suppressed the information about criminal cases, the Respondents had issued a show cause notice vide SCN/320106283/24 , dated 27.11.2024 seeking clarification on nature/status of cases pending but so far no response has been received from him till date. 6. ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 5 \ 1 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 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). 7. 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. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 9. Respondents and perused the material placed on record. In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with 10. 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. ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 ::6:: (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." r 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 11. as follows:- “9. 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), dafed 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. ” In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^ the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows; 12. “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 . , ^ ^ a presumable in.Qocjent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As ^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 7 rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 1 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." 13. 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 the 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 S.C.No.29/2021 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-X Additional District Judge Court, Machilipatnam and Cr.No.101/2021 U/s 110(E) CrPC of Kanchikacherla PS, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. 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:: 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. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SDI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR f //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Secretary, Passport and visa Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi. Regional Passport officer, 4"^ Floor, Stalin Center, Door No. 27-37 2. The Vijayawada-520002 Andhra Pradesh. 3. One CC to Sri M.Vinod Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Venkateswarlu Gunduboina (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies. ssb w “ s HIGH COURT i- DATED:08/01/2025 -•* ■V > p ANDS^ ORDER 3 1 JAN 20n WP.No.29739 of 2024 VO ^ Current Section P ATC DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS