IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12291 OF 2025 Between: Sri Vamsee Krishna Mandava, S/o Sundara Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. 3229 Monument, 48108 ANN ARBOR Ml, United States of America. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block Secretariat, Raisina Hills, New Delhi. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, 4''" Floor, Stalin Central, D.No. 27-37- 158, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada - 520002, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that 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 Respondent No.3 in not renewing my passport bearing No. M4590473 pursuant to File No. VJ2077552714325 dated 11.04.2025 on the ground of pendency of Crime No. 861/2022 against me under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act on the file of Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in as consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to the petitioner’s passport be|fing No. M4590473. 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 pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to renew and issue the petitioner’s passport bearing No. M4590473 in accordance with law and may be pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI VENKAT CHALASANI Counsel for the Respondent NoS.1 & 3: SRI J.BHASKAR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: SRI AJAY, ASST.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010242992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12291/2025 Between: Sri Vamsee Krishna Mandava ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.VENKATCHALASANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Venkat Chalasani, learned counsel for tie petitioner, Sri J.Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 3 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 2 & 4. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 3'^^ respondent in not renewing/reissuing passport bearing No.M4590473: in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner vide File No.\4’2077552714325, dated 11.04.2025, due to the pendency of , -No.SOI of 2022 of Penamaluru Police Station, is illegal and arbitrary. 2. crime 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner made an application vide File No.VJ2077552714325,dated 11.04.2025 (Ex.P.1), for the renewal/reissue of a passport to the respondent. A shortfall notice dated 26.04.2025 (Ex.P.2) was issued due to an adverse police verification report. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 30.04.2025 (Ex.P.3). Despite the explanation, the 3'^^ respondent failed to reissue/ renew the passport. Learned counsel would further submit that mere pendency of a crime is no ground for rejection of a renewal/reissue of the passport. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions,, would submit that in pursuance of the aforementioned crime registered against the petitioner, the police submitted a final report on 19.03.2025 before the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada. However, the jurisdictional court has not taken cognisance so far. 4. Learned counsel for the 1®‘ respondent would submit that due to the adverse police verification report, the passport has not been renewed/ reissued. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India', observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi^, observed as follows: 7. “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.” ' (1978) 1 see 248): AIR 1978 Se 597 ^2013(15) see Page 570 3 A Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.10.2024 in V\/.A.No.383 of 2024, considered Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the judicial proceedings pending against an individual vis-a-vis taking cognizance by the Magistrate and observed as under; 8. “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 pending before a criminal Court’, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.” In the case at hand, the jurisdictional court has not taken cognisance as. of today. In fact, as observed supra, the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed per the law. Furthermore, the law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt -3 proved. 9. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3'^^ respondent to renew/ reissue the passport to the petitioner in pursuance of application Ex.P.1 dated 11.04.2025, without reference to the Crime No.861 of 2022 of Penamaluru Police Station. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, s«h r'T' Externa, South Block Secretariat, Affairs, Raisina Hills, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, 4**^ Floor, Stalin Central, D.No. 27-37- 158, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada - 520002, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Penamaluru Police Station, Krishna District. 5. One CC to Sri Venkat Chalasani, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri J.Bhaskar, Central Government Counsel. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12291 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS