THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI ^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V IN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9703 OF 2025 ' Between: Peddireddy Lokesh, S/o.Late Siva Rama Krishna Peddireddi Aged R/o.20-1/13, Chilakalpudi, Machilipatnam Krishna about 39 years District, Andhra Pradesh presently residing in Germany ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home and External Affairs, MHA, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 2. The Consulate General of India, Munich, Germany 3. The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office Station Centre, Governerpet M.G.Road, Vijayawada, NTR District Andhra Padesh 4. The Station House Officer, Chilakalapudi Police Station Chilakalapudi Krishna District 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, order or direction more particularly one in the -: . y nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly Respondents 2 and 3 in restricting the renewal validity of petitioners passport for a period of one year thereby denying the reissuance/renewal of my passport bearing No.M3097136 pursuant to the application vide No.242000183948 for a period of 10 years as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provrsions of the Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980 and conseguently to direct the respondent to renewal/re issue petitioners passport bearing NoM3097136 for a period of 10 years. more 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 Respondents 2 and 3 to renew/reissue passport bearing no. C6450329 old for a period of 10 years pending disposal of the main writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. YASWANTH GADE /■ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010173792025 'V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) % r [3331] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9703/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Peddireddy Lokesh AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.GPFOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER: Heard, Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel representing Sri G. Yaswanth, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Srinivas, learned standing counsel for 1 to 3; and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Homl for the fourth respondent. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in restricting the renewal validity of the petitioner’s passport bearing NO.M3097136 for one year, in pursuance of the order in Crl.M.P.No.1328 of 2024 in C.C.No.126 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Machilipatnam, as modified by order dated 13.08.2024 in 2. r 2 V Crl.R.C.No.982 of 2024, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. (a) The petitioner, was a passport bearing No.F4146666 from 11.07.2005 to 10.07.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the renewal/reissuance of a passport. The petitioner was issued another passport bearing No.M3097136 from 28.10.2014 to 27.10.2024. The petitioner has been residing in Europe for the past 17 years. Petitioner made an application vide No.24-2000183948 to the Consulate General of India, Munich, Germany. The consulate, in turn, directed the petitioner to get a No Objection Certificate as per Notification No.GSR-570(E) dated 25.08.1993 due to the pendency of criminal case against the petitioner C.C.No.126 of 2022 on the file of II Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Machilipatnam. 3. (b) The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1328 of 2024 in C.C.No.126 of 2022. The said criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed on 13.08.2024 with certain conditions. Aggrieved by the conditions, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.982 of 2024 before the High Court, and the said criminal revision case was allowed on 15.10.2024. The conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate were set aside. Further, the Court directed the petitioner to studiously participate in the trial process. (c) In pursuance of the order in CrI.M.P., since no time is mentioned in the order, the passport bearing No.C6450329 was issued to the petitioner from 16.12.2024 to 15.12.2025 for one year. Learned senior counsel would submit that unless the petiti<|per’s passport is renewed for ten (10) years, as per Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 (for short “the Rules”), the petitioner will not get a visa. Learned senior counsel also refers to an email communication in which the Embassy of Germany directed the petitioner to obtain a passport with 10 years of validity. 4. 5. Learned standing counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the Joint Secretary (PSP) & Chief Passport Officer issued an Office 3 Memorandum, in pursuance of the Notification, GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993. Learned counsel would also submit that Clause 2(a)(ii) of the Office Memorandum indicates that if no period is specified either for the of the passport or for travel abroad in such an order, the passport shall be issued for one year. Learned counsel would further submit that since the trial court’s order does not specify the renewal period, the passport was renewedfor one year. issuance Consideration: Section 7 of the Passport Act and Rule 12 of the Rules prescribe the duration of passports and travel documents. Section 7 of the Act envisages *#r' . . . that a passport or travel document shall, unless, revoked earlier, continue in force for such period as may be prescribed. Rule 12 outlines that normally a passport shall be in force for, ten (10) years, other than for children below the age of 15 years. The Proviso to Sec 7 clarifies that a passport or travel document may be issued for a shorter period than the prescribed period; 6. 7. i) if the person by whom it is required so desires; or ii) if the passport authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant, considers in any case that the passport or travel document should be issued for a shorter period. Thus, as per the scheme of the Act, normally a passport or a travel document will be issued for 10 years. In case of any criminal cases, the application must approach the jurisdictional Court and based on the orders, the passport will be issued. The petitioner approached the jurisdictional court and filed a petition, and the said petition was ordered with certain conditions. The conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate read as follows: 8. 9. ■ 10. / 4 '.it' i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit stating that he shall not leave India during pendency of the said CC No. 126 of 2022 on the file of this court without permission of the court and he shall cooperate with trial. ii) The petitioner herein shall submit an application afresh along with certified copy of this order as well as the aforesaid undertaking before the passport officer/authority concerned for renewal of his passport. 11. Against those conditions, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.982 of 2024. The said revision was allowed. The operative portion of the order reads follows: as “Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The order granting ‘no objection’ certificate is upheld. The conditions irnposed in the order, dated 13-8-2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1328 of 2024 in C.C.No.126 of 2022 by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam are set aside, it is made clear that the revision petitioner shall studiously participate in in the trial process and the learned trial court shall keep in view that the presence of this petitioner need be insisted only for the further progress of the trial as and when necessary and on rest of the occasions presence of Advocate of the revision petitioner should be favorably considered as enough” Thereafter, the passport was issued for one year since the time was mentioned in the order. Very often, this court has been noticing that whenever an application is filed by an applicant facing criminal charges before the jurisdictional courts, the jurisdictional courts having entertained the applications and passing orders, without mentioning the period. The passport authorities, since no time is mentioned in the orders, are issuing the passport for one year in terms of GSR-570.(E)(a)(ii). 12. 13. In the case at hand, the email communication received by the petitioner, filed by way of a memo, indicates that the petitioner is directed to obtain a 5 passport with ten (10) years of validity. Thus, the authority issuing the visa (Germany) insists that the petitioner get a passport for 10 years. For persons residing in the United States of America on an H-1B, the validity will be for three years. In such circumstances, an applicant, facing a criminal case, gets a passport for one year, but because of the non-, mentioning of the period in the order, the very purpose will be frustrated. In Singapore, to get a 2-year work permit, the passport needs to be valid for at least 25 months. 14. 15. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in an identical situation in Narendra K.Ambwani Vs Union of India^ upon considering G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26.8.1993 at paras 6,7,10 and 11 observed as follows: 16. 6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue. 7. In the present case, the Respondents contended that the order of the learned Magistrate did not specify the period for which the passport is issued and in the light of Notification dated 23''* August, 1993 (Annexure “6” to the petition), the passport of the citizen against whom the proceedings are pending in the criminal court in India, shall be issued for a period specified by the court and if no period is specified, the passport shall be renewed for a period of one year. This court held that interpretation of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20"" September, 2006 is contrary to the express language of the order. When the order speaks about renewal of the passport in terms of the Passport Rules, reference must be made to Rule 12 alone and the Passport Officer was bound to issue the passport either for a period of 10 years or for a period of 20 years as the case may be in his discretion. The Passport Officer could not have at any rate renewed the passport for a period less than 10 years. Accordingly, / 2104 see online Bom 356 6 the Rule was made absolute and the Regional Passport Officer directed to issue the passport, renewed for a period of 10 years 20 years, (emphasis added) was or 10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate's court has directed that the passports may be renewed as per the “Rules”. 11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions: (a) In all cases where the Magistrate's court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All qualifying applicants are entitled to have passports renewed for at least ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants at least for ten years. (b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on an existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the additional booklet to the same passport, provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad. •fc- (c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26"" August, 1993, the passgQrtjhall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned. 17. Another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court followed the above judgment in Mr.Samip Nitin Ranjani Vs Union of India and others^. ^ 2016 stc Online Bom 14539 7 It is an undisputed fact that, as per Paragraphs 3 and 4, the petitioner has been residing in Europe for the past 17 years due to employment. The petitioner’s family has been staying in Germany. Thus, the order of the jurisdictional court is of no help to the petitioner vis-a-vis the issuance of a passport. 18. Thus, as discussed supra, it is advisable that mentioning the period by the jurisdictional Magistrates whenever applications are ordered will obviate further ordeal of the applicants. 19. Given the discussion supra, renewing the passport of the petitioner C6450329 for one year from 16.12.2024 to 15.12.2025 does not align with the order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, and the conditions modified in Criminal Revision Case, referred to supra. The learned 3'^^ respondent shall renew or reissue passport bearing No.C6450329 for 10 years in terms Sections 7 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980. 20. 21. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ^ raja babu ANT REGsST.RAR / SECTli^FFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Secretary, UNION OF INDIA, Ministry of Home and External Affairs, MHA, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 2. The Consulate General of India, Munich, Germany 3. The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office Station Centre, Governerpet M.G.Road, Vijayawada, NTR District Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Chilakalapudi Police Station Chilakalapudi, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri. Yaswanth Gade Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. Mallampalli Srinivas (Central Govt Counsel), Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP For Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT]. 8. Three CD Copies AL HIGH COURT DATED:24/04/2025 s* m. !-S f ORDER WP.No.9703 of 2025 5 2 6 MAY 2025, m DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS ■‘i I