V 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: 31038 OF 2024 Between: Kiran T, S/o. Late Suryachndra Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Advocate R/o.Flat No. 503, Netaji Towers Navodaya Colony, Tadepalli Guntur District, A.P.-522501 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Government of India Ministry of Horne and External Affairs, MHA, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. Regional passport Officer, Passport Office, Vijayawada 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 4. The Station House Officer, Patamata PS, Vijayawada, NTR 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 Writ, or Writs, Order or Orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly 2'^'^ respondent in issuing the proceedings vide SCN/316163633/23 dated 07-11-2023 in rejecting the issuance of petitioners passport made vide application in file No. VJF066784666524 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional, also violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India as well against well settled principles of law and consequently direct the 2^^^^ respondent to issue passport in furtherance of the application I vide file No. VJF066784666524 made by the petitioner by duly setting aside the proceedings dated 07-11-2023. 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 Respondents to process and issue passport to the petitioner by suspending the operation of the rejection order issued by the Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada vide SCN/316163633/23 dated 07-11-2023 pending disposal of the main writ Petition for immediate travel needs pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM 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 APHC010592912024 i 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: 31038/2024 Between: Kiran T ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT 2.GP FOR HOME 2 r The Court made the following; This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus A) To declare the action of the respondents, particularly 2"^ respondent in issuing proceedings vide SCN/316163633/23 dated 07.11.2023 in rejecting the issuance of petitioner’s passport vide application File No.VJF066784666524 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2”^ respondent to issue passport in furtherance of the application vide File No. VJF066784666524 made by the petitioner duly setting aside the proceedings dated 07.11.2023. ’’ 1. The case of the petitioner is as follows; 2. Petitioner herein is a passport holder bearing passport No.K8591950 issued on 03.12.2012, valid upto 02.12.2022. Vide application vide SCN/316163633/23 dated 07.11.2023, the petitioner applied for renewal 3. of the same. Respondent No.2 herein had issued a letter dated 07.11.2023 seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport as it is evident from the police verification report that the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case vide 4. L_ 3 7*^ Crime No.66 of 2023 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada. Though the petitioner had explained with regard to pendency of the criminal case, the 2 respondent did not consider for renewal of the passport. Hence, the writ petition. nd Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the complainant was lodged based on false allegations and except that, there is no offence. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying the renewal 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. 5. 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 catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of lndia\ 6. in 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 of the passport 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated 04.07.2024, wherein it is stated that as per the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 8. ^ 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 r / 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 Hence, if the Court gives permission to the applicant to travel Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E). 9. 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. 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;- 570(E) undertaking. abroad and directs the 10. Heard the 11. (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent the passport without insisting on with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the passport authorities to renew compliance 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 covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the cases of the petitioners ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 5 r 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. 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 12. follows:- 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. ” '9. 10. 11. 6 In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others'*, the Higher Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 13. 6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sum it 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. W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 7 r^' f 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 considerthe application of 14. the petitioner, and renew his passport for a period of three (03) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide Crime No.66 of 2023 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such 15. steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 16. closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS assistant REGISTRAR ] / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Government of India Ministry of Home and External Affairs, Union of India, MHA, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. The 1. The Secretary Regional passport Officer, Passport Office, Vijayawada 3. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur district. Officer, Patamata PS, Vijayawada, NTR Distric Secretariat, 4. The Station House 5. One CC to M/s. Pillix Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC] Central Govt. Counsel[OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Thenepalli Niranjan 7. Two CC’s to GP for Home High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:08/01/2025 of X 2 0 JAN 2025 s - •• - OiU Current section 19 ORDER V WP.No.31038 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS