IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30958 OF 2024 Between: y Imran Khan Mirapakayala, S/o Khader Basha Khan, aged 45 years, R/o H.No. 18-60/4-1, Kothapet, Punganuru Town, Chittoor District ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Office, 4^^^ Floor Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governmor pet, MG Road, Vijayawada City 3. The Station House Officer, Punganuru Town P.S., Punganur, Chittoor 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 be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the action of the 2"^ may respondent herein in not consider the petitioners passport application dt. 18-09-20'^ vide file No.VJ 1076944060524 vide letter Ref.No. SCN/320225237/24 on the ground of his name was shown as accused No.26 in CC No.22/2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Punganur for an offence alleged under sec. 341,290, 188 r/w sec. 34 of PC, despite the^titioner seeking fresh passport as his earlier passport bearing NO.J584408 which was issued on 04-07-2011 and the same was expired on 03-07-2021 for purpose of visiting to Hajj Makkah as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and violated the ^principles of natural justice and affected his rights guaranteed under article 14, 19(1 )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent herein to issue passport to him by consider the application dt. 18-09-'2024 vide file No.VJ 1076944060524 vide letter Ref.No. SCN/320225237/2Jl^by dispense with police verification report as the petitioner want to go to Makkah. 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 nd respondent herein to issue passport by consider the petitioners application dt. 18-09-2024 vide file No.VJ 1076944060524 vide letter Ref.No.SCN/320225237/24 by dispense with the police verification report pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010592222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30958/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Imran Khan Mirapakayala AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: \ The Court made the following; ’'T. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner herein is a passport 1. holder bearing passport NoJ5484408 issued on 04.07.2011, valid upto 03.07.2021. Vide application F.No.VJI076944060524 dated 18.09.2024 the petitioner applied for renewal of the same. Respondent No.2 herein had issued letter Ref.No.SCN/320225237/24 dated 10.12.2024 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 CC.No.22 of 2019 pending before the JFCM Court, Punganur. Though the petitioner had explained with regard to pendency of the respondent did not consider for renewal of the passport. 2. nd criminal case, the 2 Hence, the writ petition. 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. 3. 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 4. in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India^. 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 5. the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the 6. 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 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). 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. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 8. Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. ^ 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with detailed order., the operative In Kadar Valli Shaik’s various case law on the subject and passed a portion of which reads as follows.- 9. seeking direction to the respondent the passport without insisting on dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected. (a) The prayer of writ petitioners passport authorities to renew compliance with the notification pendency of the criminal case .. the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the production of the order (b) A direction is issued to of the petitioners covered cases Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on Court where the criminal case is pending for trial. from the concerned (c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of application pendency other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993. learned Judge of this Court disposed of Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as 10. the same follows;- of the High Court at Madras dated 20058 of 2020 held that mere pendency of a First A learned Single Judge 9. 04.02.2021 In W.P.No. 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 renewal of the passport proceedings have commenced and issuance or 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). ” 10. 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 Higher Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 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 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 W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right. 12. 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 his passport for a period of two (02) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to CC.No.22 of 2019 pending before the JFCM Court, Punganur, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. Further, if the petitioner intends 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. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such 14. 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. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, I' Th! Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi 8 Th^ pet. mg Road, Vijayawada City Jhftto^r Disth^^^^ Station, t' Onf rr ^■.^^'^eraiah Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two rr-ftn nn'i u (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC] 7.' ^^ree CD Co^s ' ^maravathi [OPUC] Punganur, ssb HIGH COURT DATED;24/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.30958 of 2024 0 FEB 2025 X% Oi . Current Section ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS