. I APHC010600322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wj TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 'f“ % fe '1 PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31381 OF 2024 Between; Thota Srihitha, D/o. Late Rama Rao, aged 19 years, Occ. Student, R/o. 31-31- 5, Sai Baba Street, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. Dhaba Gardens, Visakhapatnam ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, Office at Murali Nagar Junction, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The State, Represented by its Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station Visakhapatnam, 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not processing the application of the petitioner for issuance of passport with file No. VS1066954688324, dated 06.09.2024 with the reason that police verification report is not clear as illegal, arbitrary, discriminating, unjust t against to Article 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and against to the rules of Passport Act and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to issue the passport by considering the application dated 06.09.2024 in file No. VS 1066954888324 forthwith. 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 2nd respondent to issue the passport by considering the application dated 06.09.2024 in file No. VS 1066954888324 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI BETHAPALLI SURYANARAYANA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: 0 ''•s APHC010600322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMB [3331] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31381/2024 Between: 1.THOTA SRIHITHA, D/0. LATE RAMA RAO, AGED 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/0. 31-31-5, SAI BABA STREET, ALLIPURAM, DHABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH. DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, OFFICE AT VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA MURALI NAGAR JUNCTION PRADESH. 3.THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, II TOWN POLICE STAION VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not processing the application of the petitioner for issuance of passport with file No. VS1066954888324, dated 06.09.2024 with the reason that police verification report is not clear as illegal, arbitrary, discriminating, unjust against to Article 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and against to the rules of W.P.No.31381 of Zt ^4 Passport Act and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to issue the passport by considering the application dated 06.09.2024 in file No. VS 1066954888324 forthwith and to pass 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 Pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to issue the passport by considering the application dated 06.09.2024 in file No. VS 1066954888324 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VSAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.BETHAPALLI SURYANARAYANA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri B, Suryanarayana, learned panel counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ajay learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondent No.3. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not processing the application made by the petitioner for issuance of ci with file No.VSI 066954888324 dated 06.09.2024, as illegal and passport arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner made application for the issuance of a passport. However, the same was not adverse police verification report regarding the an processed due to an involvement of the petitioner in crime No.201/2022 of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under sections 46^, SRS,J W.P.No.31381 of 2024 471 and 420 read with 120b of IPC and section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. He would submit that mere pendency of a criminal case is no bar for issuing a passport. 4. Learned panel counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that due to pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, the petitioner’s application could not be processed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the Police have not filed any final report before the jurisdictional Court. 5. Thus, as seen from the pleadings and instructions, there is no dispute regarding the pendency of the aforementioned crime against the petitioner. However, the jurisdictional court has not taken cognizance. 6. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the issue involved in W.A.No.383 of 2024. The Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 29.10.2024, considered the aspect of cognizance by the Court in a criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows: 7. “16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of ‘proceedings 'r'T W.P.No,313810 pending before a criminal Court’, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.” Unless the guilt is proved, an accused is presumed to be innocent and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for renewing the passport, and the right to travel abroad is a personal liberty of a person. 8. Section 6 of the Act deals with the refusal of passports, travel documents etc. Section 6(2)(f), which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: 9. 6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: - (2) (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi^ held that 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 o1 India. 10. The Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another^ and Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India (UOI) and others^, held thai the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty. 11. * (2013) 15 see 570 ^ AIR 1978 Se 597 ^ (2019) Supreme (Se) 1516 • I SRS,J W,P.No,31381 of 2024 12. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing respondent No.2 to consider the aforementioned application made by the petitioner for issuance of passport, strictly as per the provisions of the Passports Act 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980, without reference to the aforementioned crime number. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. The Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, Office at Murali Nagar Junction, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. The Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. One CC to Sri V Sai Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Bethapalli Suryanarayana (Central Govt Counsel) Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. TF HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 31381 OF 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION, WITHOUT COSTS