IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2259 OF 2025 Between: S/o. Seshagiri Rao Mr.Jagadish Chandra Bose Sudunagunta Sudunagunta, Aged 66 Years, R/o. D No. 6/81, Umashankar Nagar Lane 2, Kanuru, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-520007. ...PETITIONER AND Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, 37, South Block, New Delhi. The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Regional Passport Office, 4th Floor, Stalin Central, D No. 27-37-158, Governorpet, M.G Road, Vijayawada-520002. The State of A.P., Rep. by Station House Officer, Vinukonda Police Station, Guntur District. 1. 2. 3. ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not renewing my passport, under Application NO.VJ2077225073724 dt. 19.12.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, apart from being violative of my Rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the Respondents to consider my application and renew the passport bearing No. N1507606 for a period of 10 years and Pass such other order or Orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case pending disposal of the above writ petition. 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 office of the Respondent No,2 to consider my Written Explanation dt. 02.01.2025 and renew the passport bearing No. N1507606 for a period of 10 years. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010041042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3329] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2259/2025 Between: Jagadish Chandra Bose Sudunagunta ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.2259 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is field under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not renewing my passport, under Application No.VJ2077225073724 dated 19.12.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, apart from being violative of my Rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the Respondents to consider my application and renew the passport bearing No.N1507606 for a period of 10 years and pass ...” The case of the petitioner is that he was issued passport bearing 2. No. N1507606 on 24.07.2015, which is valid till 23.07.2025. As his passport is set to expire on 23.07.2025, he submitted an application to the 2'^'^ respondent vide application No.VJ2077225073724 dated 19.12.2024 requesting the renewal of his passport. The petitioner submits that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case vide Cr.No.34 of 2011, at Venukonda Police Station, for the offences under Sections 406, 420 of IPC r/w. Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said case was later numbered as C.C.No.265 of 2019 on the file of the learned Munsif ■, v*4 3 Magistrate, at Venukonda, Guntur District, where the petitioner arrayed as Accused No.2. was In response to his application for passport renewal, the 2 respondent issued a letter dated 23.12.2024 directing the petitioner to provide proof of clearance of the criminal case and submit the required documents to the Enquiry Officer at Vijayawada Passport Office within 30 working days. In compliance with the said letter, the petitioner appeared before the 2"'^ respondent on 03.01.2025 and submitted the required clarifications, along with a written explanation and necessary documents, outlining the circumstances that led to the filing of the false criminal case against him. However, as his request for passport renewal was not processed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. nd 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 5. 4 abroad as per his wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union oflndia\ 6. 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 petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has furnished written instructions, stating that the petitioner, who is Accused No.2, was granted anticipatory bail by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, vide Crl.M.P.No.3337 of 2011. This anticipatory bail was subsequently vacated, and an investigation was conducted. Currently, the criminal case i.e., C.C.No.265 of 2019, against the petitioner is pending trial before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the light of the decision of the learned Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case^, the 8. petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him. ^ 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, daWu=2ef02.2O24 ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 5 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. 10. 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. (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. 6 W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion 11. Further in disposed of the same 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 taken by an appropriate Court that it can ‘9. cognizance is held that criminal proceedings have commenced and renewal of the passport would be depend be issuance or objection being given by the concerned Court. on no Government has also issued The Central 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).” 10. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when there is a pending proceedings before the is taken, it would have 11. Criminal Court after cognizance to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court. The Union of India and others'^, In Narige Ravindranath vs the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows; 12. '' W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 7 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: 1 "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." 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." 13. 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 one year, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.265 of 2019 on the file of the 8 learned Munsif Magistrate, at Vinukonda, Guntur District, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. 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. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. 16. SD/- K. TATA RAO . DEPUTY REGISTRAR , f //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, 37, South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Regional Passport Office, 4**^ Floor, Stalin Central, D No.27-37-158, Governorpet, M.G Road, Vijayawada-520002. 3. The Station House Officer, Vinukonda Police Station, Guntur District. 4. One CC to Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General Of India, High Court of A.P. [OPUC] 6. Two CC’s to GP for Home, High Court of A.P. at Amaravti[OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:10/02/2025 ORDER f H FEB 2025 Currem Section . WP.No.2259 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS