IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4 OF 2025 Between: Sri Tummala Rama Seshu, S/o T Venkata Ramaiah, R/o 32-9-6A Pinnamanenivari Street, Mogalrajpuram, Madhu Gardens, Vijayawada (Urban), Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 520010 \ - ...Petitioner i AND 1. The Union of India, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block Secretariat, Raisina Hills, New Delhi. Passport Officer, 4th Floor. Stalin (^tral, D.No. 27-37- 15.8, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada - 520002, 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, Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2 m holding my renewed p^sport bearing No. C5558822 pursuant to the application dated 03.12.2024 vide File No.VJ2077175971724 ground of pendency of Criminal case vide FIR No.02/2023, (2), 370(3) of IPO and Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act of Police Station, Vijayawada Vijayawada as illegal arbitrary and violation of Article India. nd respondent on the u/sec 370 (A) Machavaram on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, 21 of Constitution of 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 nd respondent to release my renewed passport bearing No C5558822. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKAT CHALASANI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT. The Court made the following order: f APHC010606552024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Sri Tummala Rama Seshu AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKAT CHALASANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT. The Court made the following: 2 % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4/2025 ORDER: 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 by declaring the action of the 2'"'^ respondent in holding petitioner’s renewed passport bearing NO.C5558822 pursuant to the application dated 03.12.2024 vide File No.VJ2077170971724 on the ground of pendency of Criminal case vide FIR No.02/2023 under Sections 370(A) (2) 370(3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada as illegal arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders...” The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner made an application dated 03.12.2024 for renewal of the passport. The 2"^^ respondent renewed the passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years i.e., upto 02.12.2034. Thereafter, the 2""' respondent issued a letter dated 17.12.2024 to the petitioner stating that renewal of the passport was not being done due to the pendency of the criminal case i.e., FIR No.02/2023 and called for explanation with regard to the same. Later, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Even though the petitioner submitted the explanation, the 2 respondent is not releasing the passport to the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 1. 2. nd 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the charge 3. sheet is filed against the petitioner, the same is not numbered and the C.C. number is a\A/aited. As such, Section 6 or Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of India and others.^ 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents placed written instructions, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was involved in a crime case i.e.. Crime No.2 of 2023 of Machavaram Police Station and the charge sheet is filed on the file of the VIII MM Court, Vijayawada and C.C. number is awaited. Further it is stated that the petitioner deliberately suppressed about the crime case. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others^. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and also perused the material placed on record. It appears that the respondents are under the premise that the petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal case and he applied for passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that the said crime was registered as Crime No.2 of 2023 on the file of Machavaram Police Station and the charge sheet is filed on the file of the VIII MM Court, 5. 6. 7. MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26-09.2022 2023(3)ALD213(AP) 4 Vijayawada and C.C. number is awaited. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioners is contrary to the law. For more understanding. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is 8. extracted hereunder: ‘‘Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting anyforeign 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:— {a)that the applicant is not a citizen ofIndia; {\))that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity ofIndia; (c)that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security ofIndia; (djthat the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations ofIndia with anyforeign country; (ejthat the applicant has, at any time during the period ofifve 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 imprisonmentfor not less than two years; (fjthat proceedings in respect ofan offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (gjthat 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 (ijthat 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. 5 The issue of renewal and issuing of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for 9. this purpose. It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great 10. significance. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 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 11. 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 ^ W,P.No.25141 of.2923, dated 03.10.2023 6 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." 12. 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 allowed. Further the respondents are directed to release the passport to the petitioner for a period of three(3) years, if otherwise the applications order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 13. are in 14. This order shall not preclude the Respondents from taking such steps 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 as closed. Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, S OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India South Block Secretariat, Raisina Hills, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Floor, Stalin Central, D.No 27-37- 158, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada - 520002, Andhra Pradesh. 3. One CC to Sri Venkat Chal^ani, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Pamarthi Kameswara Rao, SC for Central Govt [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER OF f| 2 7 JAN 2C:5 Current Section WP.No.4 of 2025 3 60 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS