j IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2245 OF 2025 Between: Srikaran Emmanuel Sukumar Patnaik, S/o.S.K.James Patnaik, aged 76 years, R/o.Door No.36-97-56/3 FF-201, James Patnaik Enclave, Kapparada road, GVMC community hall, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary Ministry of External Affairs, (MEA) is SO(DB), 74B South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport officer. Regional Passport officer. Near P.F.Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem, VUDA Lay out, NAD post Visakhapatnam-530009 ...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 like a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent no.2 to renewal of passport vide passport no. M6369562, issued on 17-02-2015 to the Petitioner and insisting the Petitioner submit an Acquittal order/NOC from the Court Where the criminal case is pending against Petitioner vide C.C.No.205 of 2024 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Srikakulam vide its letter dt 29-11-2024 in Application dt 21-11-2024 in file no. VS1077138288724 is illegal, high handed and arbitrary and a, violation of Art.14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and a violation of Provisions of Passport Act, 1962 r and consequently direct the Respondent no.2 to renew the passport M6369562, issued on 17-02-2015 consider the Application dt-21-11- 2024 in file no. VS1077138288724 without insisting the Petitioner submit Acquittal order/NOC from the Court Where the criminal an case is pending against Petitioner vide C.C.No.205 of 2024 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge Srikakulam. Court at lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 Respondent no.2 to renew the passport M6369562, issued on 17-02-2015 considering the Application dt;21-11-2024 in file no. VS1077138288724 without insisting the Petitioner order/NOC from the Court Where the Petitioner vide C.C.No.205 of 2024 Magistrate of First Class-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Srikakulam. submit an Acquittal criminal case is pending against on the file of Learned Judicial Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. TANDASA RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: M/s. ENKEKALUVA ANJANA REDDY(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER f APHC010035062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2245/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Srikaran Emmanuel Sukumar Patnaik AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TANDASA RAD HA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.ENKEKALUVA ANJANA REDDY(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 2 4ii' THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA v- WRIT PETITION NO: 2245/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: 1. ‘‘...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction of respondent No. 2 to renewal of passport vide passport NO.M6369562, issued on 17.02.2015 to the petitioner and insisting the Petitioner to submit an acquittal order/NOC from the Court where the criminal case is pending against petitioner vide C.C.No.205 of 2024 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Srikakulam vide its letter dated 29.11.2024 in Application dated 21.11.2024 in file No. VSI077138288724 is illegal, high handed and arbitrary and a violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and a violation of Provisions of Passport Act, 1962 and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 to renew the passport M6369562 issued on 17.02.2015 consider the Application dated 21.11.2024 in file No. VS1077138288724 without insisting the Petitioner to submit an acquittal order/NOC from the Court where the criminal case is pending against Petitioner vide C.C.No.205 of 2024 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Srikakulam and to pass such other order or orders...” The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had a passport bearing 2. NO.M6369562 and the same is valid upto 16.02.2025. Hence, the petitioner made an application dated 21.11.2024 to the 2"'^ respondent seeking for 3 renewal of the passport. In reply, the 2'^^ respondent issued a letter dated 29.11.2024 to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to furnish an acquittal order/ quash order/ no objection certificate from the concerned Court, as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case i.e., C.C.No.205 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Srikakulam. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in 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. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. 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 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 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted the written instructions issued by the respondent authorities dated 03.02.2025, wherein it is stated that as per the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 4 f 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. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. 9. 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:- (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 passport, on production of the order from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial. " W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 5 m (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. 10. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022 a learned Judge of this Court disposed of portion of which reads as the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant follows:- ‘9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras 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 dated 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. 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 Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2) (f). ” required from a 11. 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.” 11. In Narige Ravindranath Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: vs. The Union of India and others'^, the High =—.. '' W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 6 f 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. /\s 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." \ 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 years, in accordance . with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.205 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Srikakulam, 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, 13. whenever his presence is required by the Court. Flowever, 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. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no 15. order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 16. closed. SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The 3 Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, (MEA) is SO(DB), 74B South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport office. Near P.F. Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem, VUDA Lay out, NAD post, Visakhapatnam-530009 3. One CC to M/s. Tandasa Radha Rani, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s. Enkekaluva Anjana Reddy(Central Govt, Counsel) [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s. M. Uma Devi, Central Govt. Counsel[OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2245 of 2025 ANoBi^ 'i 03 MAR 2025 . Curreni Saciion DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS