IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAl^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 204 OF 2025 ‘ir- I O V- Lv <• Between: Ramudu Amara, S/o Kamudu, aged 25 years, R/o D.No.3-29, Main Veedhi Jeerupalem, Ranasthalam, Srikakulam-532407. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by it Secretary to External Affairs, New Delhi 110 001 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Seva Kendra, Botcha Square, Door No 39-67-1, Kapparada Village, Opp Birla Junction, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ...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 order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondents in not reissuing the passport as per application No VSA077006141124 dated 08-10-2024 as illegal, improper unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also Section 6(2) of the Passport Act1967 and further direct the 2""^ respondent to renew the Petitioner passport application No VSA077006141124 dated 08-10- 2024 forthwith without reference with the FIR (Crime) No 104 of 2022 on the file of J.R.Puram Police Station, Sfikakualam. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 renew the passport application VSA077006141124 dated 08-10-2024 of the petitioner in the interests of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VISESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI A. V. S. RAMA KRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER ::1:: APHC010570912024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 204/2025 Between: Ramudu Amara ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VISESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.AVSRAMA KRISHNA 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 204 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: This instant Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner for the following relief: “..to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in per application No. VSA077006141124, dated 08.10.2024 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 and further direct the 2"'^ Respondent to renew the Petitioner’s passport application No.VSA077006141124, dated 08.10.2024 forthwith without reference with the FIR (Crime) No. 104/2022 on the file of J.R. puram Police Station, Srikakulam and pass..” not reissuing the passport as The case of the Petitioner is that petitioner made an application for The said 2. renewal of his passport through passport seva kendra. nd Respondent for verification and application has been sent to the 2 renewal. The 2"'^ Respondent on police enquiry came to know that FIR (Crime) No.104/2022 on the file of J.R.Puram PS, Srikakulam under Sections 324, 323, 427 r/w 34 IPC has been filed against the Petitioner, frivolous and false and was The allegations in the complaint are 3 implicated to harass the Petitioner along with other members. Petitioner had complied all the conditions as per Section 5 of the Passport Act and obtained passport on 24.03.2015 valid upto 23.03.2025. Since the tenure of Petitioner’s passport will expire in the Month of March, 2025, the Petitioner made an application No.VSA077006141124, dated 08.10.2024 to the concerned authority for renewal. Not renewing of Petitioner’s application on the ground that FIR is pending is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law U/s 6(2) of Passport Act. It is submitted that the 2'^^ Respondent can only refuse for renewal on the ground as specified under clauses of Section 6(2) - As per clause(e) of Section 6(2) an application can only be rejected on the ground, if the applicant has 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. In the instant case there no such conviction against the Petitioner. Hence the Writ Petition. 3. was 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the right to travel is indeed a fundamental right and it cannot be deprived off under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held in catena of judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi v. Union A of India' and learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara vs. Union of indi^. In view of the settled principles of law, the Petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport. counsel for the Respondents submits that GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, when a Criminal Court, the 4. On the other hand, learned as per the Ministry’s criminal case is pending against the applicant in any No Objection Certificate is pending along with GSR 570(E) appiicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or (NOC) from the Court below where case Hence, if the Court gives permission to the applicant to travel undertaking abroad and Respondents will comply the order in to issue passport, the in accordance with the GSR 570(E). directs the Respondent Authorities Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels, it is appropriate 5. to look into the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, as extracted herein under; ■Section 6(2)- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the nasfZ authority ^hall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under ^ t^ub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more ot tn other ground, namely:— following grounds, and on {a)that the applicant is not a citizen of India, no ^ 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 5 {b)that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (c)that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d)that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e)that 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; (Tjthat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g)that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h)that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation (i)that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. The issue of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose. 6. 6 It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go 7. abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows; 8. “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." 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 disposed of directing the Respondents to 9. ^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 ^9 7 consider the application of the petitioner without referring to the FIR (Crime) No.104/2022 on the file of J.R. Puram Police Station, Srikakulam District, and renew the passport to the petitioner for a period of three(3) years, if otherwise the application is in order, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order shall not preclude the Respondents 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. 10. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTkAR I I //TRUE COPY// / SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Secretary to External Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi 110 001 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Seva Kendra Square, Door No 39-67-1, Kapparada Village,Opp Birla Junction Nagar Visakhapatnam. , Botcha Murali 3. One CC to Sri P. Viseswar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A. V. S. Rama Krishna, Advocate 5. Three CD Copies. [OPUC] ssb HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.204 of 2025 X 2 5 FEB 2025 r . Current Section disposing of the w.p. without costs