IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT#^'^^^^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30707 OF 2024 > ct '' o 0\: ¥ Between: Lai Bahadur Sastry Gogineni, S/o. lagan Mohan Rao Gogineni, Aged 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. 403, Lakshmi Narasimha Apartment, MRO Office Road, Penamaluru, Krishna District, A.P. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, GJ3M plus 9M, Venkateswara Theatre Complex, M.G. Road, 0pp. Radio Station Vijayawada, 520610, A.P. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents I 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 the inaction of 2 nd respondent in reissuing the Passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application No. VJ2077077419724, dated 30-10-2024 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and against the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue the passport to the petitioner pursuant to his Application No. VJ2077077419724, dated 30-10-2024. re- 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 2"^ respondent to consider the petitioners Passport Application No. VJ2077077419724, dated 30-10-2024 and re-issue passport to the petitioner, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PANDAMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010587962024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 [3311] THURSDAY .THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30707/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Lai Bahadur Sastry Gogineni AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PANDAMANEN1 SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30707/2024 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 by declaring the inaction of 2""' respondent in reissuing the Passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application No.VJ2077077419724, dated 30.10.2024, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and against the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2”^ respondent to re-issue the passport to the petitioner pursuant No.VJ2077077419724, dated to his Application 30.10.2024 and to pass such other order or orders... The brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made an application respondent for re-issuance of the passport. Pursuant to the said application, the 2'’'' respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 07.11.2024 to the petitioner calling for explanation with regard to the criminal cases registered against him. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 11.11.2024 to the 2"^^ respondent stating that the said two criminal cases i.e., C.C.No.437 of 2020 and C.C.No.403 of 2022 are pending and one case is at trial stage and another case is at summons stage. The petitioner’s son and daughter-in-law were settled in USA. Now, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner was pregnant and expecting the date of 2. dated 30.10.2024 before the 2nd 3 delivery on 20.01.2025. As such, the petitioner has to go USA. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for reissuance of the passport. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying the renewal/re-issuance of the passport of the petitioner is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition. 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 lndia\ 4. 5. 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 the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal/re-issuance of the passport On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that 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 6. as ' 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of*2<)24, dated 20.02.2024 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). It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned Judge in Klijadar Valli Shaik’s Case^, the petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him. 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:- (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 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. 7. 8. 9. 7. 8. 9. cases ’ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 5 Ik 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 follows:- 10. as '9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 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. 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). ’’ 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: 10. 11. 11. 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 W.P.No.25141 of 20^3re!ated 03.10.2023 6 the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 1. 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." \ In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to respondents to consider the application of the petitioner, and renew/re-issue his passport for a period of two(2) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Cases vide C.C.Nos.437 of 2020 & 403 of 2022 pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this 12. order. 7 if the petitioner intend to travel abroad, he shall obtain NOC from concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other 13. Further, the Court 14. However, purposes. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no 15. order as to costs. miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 16. Consequently closed. Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR fr If //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER / To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Ministry of ExternalAffairs, Union of India, South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi. Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office GJ3M plus Theatre Complex, M.G. Road, 0pp. Radio Station 2. The 9M, Venkateswara Vijayawada, 520610, A.P. 3 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 4. One CC to Sri Pandamaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies 6. Two RAM HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.30707 of 2024 1 13 JAN 20?5 X ; O Co. . Currenl Section . ^ DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS