IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1605 OF 2025 Between: Gopireddy Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Venkateswara Reddy, Aged about 55 years, D.No. 16-2-137, Nayab Bazar, Guntur Road, Narsaraopeta, Palnadu District - 522 601 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 4th Floor, Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada - 520 002. The Station House Officer, Narsaraopeta 2 Town Police Station, Narsaraopeta, Palnadu District. The Station House Officer, Narsaraopeta 1 Town Police Station, Narsaraopeta, Palnadu District. 2. 3. 4. ...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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not issuing the Passport of the Petitioner bearing No.L5581361 in pursuance of my application for reissuing of passport vide file No. VJ2077268870125, (Application reference No. SCN/320437491/25) dated 02.01.2025 on the ground FIRs are registered and investigation is pending against him as illegal arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19 and T of the Constitution of India apart from the provisions of Passport Act, 19.67 "and consequently direct the Respondents to renew the same fdtthWith. 21 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to reissue the passport bearing Petitioner vide file No. VJ2077268870125, may No. L5581361 of the (Application reference No. SCN/320437491/25), dated 02.01.2025 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KANUKOLANU SRI SAI SANJAY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mrs. ALEKHYA REDDY TADASINA, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER V ' % APHC010031612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1605/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Gopireddy Srinivasa Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KANUKOLANU SRI SAI SANJAY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.ALEKHYA REDDY TADASINA The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1605/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not issuing the Passport of the Petitioner bearing NO.L5581361 in pursuance of my application for reissuing of passport No. VJ2077268870125, vide (Application reference No.SCN/320437491/25) dated 02.01.2025 on the ground FIP’s are registered and investigation is pending against him as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the Respondents to rene\A/ the same forthwith and to pass such other order or orders.. ” file 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner herein was issued passport bearing No.L5581361 valid from 28.10.2013 to 27.10.2023 i.e., for a period often years. Pursuant to completion of ten years of period, the petitioner herein submitted an application dated 02.01.2025 to the 2"^ respondent herein renewal/ re-issuance of his passport. However, the 2 requesting for respondent vide letter dated 07.01.2025 intimating that they received an adverse Police Verification Report against the petitioner, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner is involved in Criminal Cases in Cr.No.58 of 2024 registered at II Town Police Station, Narsaraopet Cr.No.62 of 2024 registered at I Town Police Station, Narasaraopet. Further, the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation along with all the required documents to the enquiry officer at the Vijayawada Passport Office within 30 days of issuance of the nd and Notice. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the application of the petitioner and in not renewing/re issuing his passport, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent authorities, more particularly, respondent No.2 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. He further submits that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per her wish as held in catena of % ■■•9 judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of lndia\ 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 4. petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents placed on record the written instructionsdated 29.01.2025 issued by the 3'"'^ respondent, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner is involved 5. in two criminal cases i.e,. Cr.No. 58 of 2024 and Cr.No.62 of 2024 and the same were numbered as P.R.C.Nos. 17 of 2024 and 22 of 2024 on the file of 1®' Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. He further submits 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 ^ 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 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. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. 7. 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:- 8. (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 cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the Passports Act, for renewal of the ' W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 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 9. Court disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as 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. '9. 10. 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 11. 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. 6. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2013 (15) see 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." 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 W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 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." 11. 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/ re-issue his passport for a period of two (02) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide PRC Nos. 17/2024 and 22/2024 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, if the petitioner intend to travel abroad, he shall obtain NOC from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. 12. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other purposes. 13. 14. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if stand closed. any, shall Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 4'^ Floor, Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada - 520 002. 3. The Station House Officer, Narsaraopeta 2 Town Police Station, Narsaraopeta, Palnadu District. 4. The Station House Officer, Narsaraopeta 1 Town Police Station, Narsaraopeta, Palnadu District. 5. One CC to Sri Kanukolanu Sri Sai Sanjay, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Mrs. Alekhya Reddy Tadasina, SC for Central Govt. Counsel [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) 8. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:03/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.1605 of 2025 2 ^ FEB 2025 | Current Soction rxrs DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS