APHC010040362024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2358/2024 Between: 1. KOTHAPALLI NARAYANASWAMY, S/O RAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT D.NO. 3/330, GOPAVARAM STREET, PUTTAPARTI, ANANATHAPURAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS NEW DELHI. 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KORMANGALA 80 FEET RD, KORMANGLA 8TH BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560095 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTTAPARTHY URBAN PS, PUTTAPATRY ANANTHAPURAMU, 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2, in indefinitely delaying the issuance of the passport applied vide file No. BNl 065176341723 dated 16.03.2023, which is arbitrary, illegal, and colourable exercise of power, and contravention of the provisions of the Passports Act and rules made there under and also contrary to the well settled legal principles qua Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and apart being violative of SRS,J W.P.No.2358 of 2024 fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondent No.2 to issue passport to the petitioner as fixed by this Honble Court and to pass IA 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 respondent No.2 to issue passport in an expeditious manner to the petitioner pending disposal of writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ARUN KUMAR R Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. DILIP JAYARAM S (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in delaying the issuance of the passport applied vide No.BN1065176341723, dated 16.03.2023, is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri R. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Dileep, learned counsel appeared for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for the issuance of a passport vide No.BN1065176341723, dated 16.03.2023, to respondent No.2. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter from respondent No.2, to clarify regarding the criminal case in Cr.No.82 of SRS,J W.P.No.2358 of 2024 2022 of Puttaparthy Urban PS. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 04.07.2023. However, the respondent No.2 has not issued the passport. 4. Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted instructions of Puttaparthy Urban Police Station dated 05.02.2024. As seen from the instructions, the police filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.82 of 2022 of Puttaparthy Urban PS, registered against the petitioner, before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy and the same was numbered C.C.No.239 of 2023. The instructions further disclose that on 01.12.2023, the accused called present, copies furnished and the criminal case was posted to 19.06.2024 for examination of the accused. 5. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the aforementioned criminal case is coming up for trial. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not refute the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 7. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the Criminal Court has taken cognizance, and the same is coming up for trial. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024 considered the said aspect of cognisance concerning an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows: “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 SRS,J W.P.No.2358 of 2024 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.” 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional criminal court and make an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the learned jurisdictional criminal court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 17.03.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.2358 of 2024 147 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.2358 OF 2024 Date : 17.03.2025 TVN