s ■ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2253 OF 2025 Between: Bandi Ramabrahmam, S/o. Ramanjulu, Aged about 62 years, R/o. 22-10- 3/2, Woodnagar, Lane, Chirala, BapatIa District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Rep by its Secretary New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Office, Rep by its Regional Passport officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District(Presently NTR District) 3. The Station House Officer, Chirala Rural Police Station, Chirala BapatIa District. now ...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 any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in refusing to renew the petitioners^ passport bearing No: M5034433 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to renew the petitioner^ above mentioned passport. 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 e pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to renew the petitioner's passport bearing No:M5034433 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010042012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2253/2025 Between: Bandi Ramabrahmam ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 0 the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NININIAGADDA WRIT PETIT'f^M NO: 2253/2025 ORDER: is filed claiming the following relief. This Writ Petition is 1. to issue any writ or direction more pariicuiariy one of Mandamus declaring the meet,on on - in refusing to renew the illegal and in the nature of Writ the part of the respondents 1 fj" passport bearing No.M5034433 as conseguently direct the respondents to renew mentioned passport and to pass such petitioners arbitrary and the petitioners above other order or orders... that, the petitioner herein is a retired 2. The brief facts of the case are NO.M5034433. The House Officer and is having a passport bearing Station said passport was expired on has submitted an application dated 16.12 renewal of his passport for a to the expiry, the petitioner 30.12.2024. Prior .2024 to the 2""* respondent seeking While things further period of ten years, herein received a communication for 26.12.2024, the petitioner the adverse police stood thus, on verification report a criminal case No.279/2021 for the 467 r/w 34 IPC and Section 5 of Pursuant to which, the 07.01.2025 stating that no issued. Even stating that basing upon regisfered against the petitioner vide Crime has been punishable under Sections 420, 486 file of Chirala Rural Police Station offences APPDFE Act on the in submitted his explanation on petitioner herein charge is framed, no after receipt of the said explanation arrest warrant is pending, no summons are respondent neither considered nor Hence, the present Writ Petition. nd the 2 issued passport to the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the referred Criminal Case is still in F.I.R stage. As such, Section 6 or Section 10 of the Passports 3. Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of India and others.^ 4. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Home furnished 5. written instructions, wherein it is stated that a criminal case in Cr.No.279/2021 has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 386, 467 r/w 34 IPC and Section 5 of APPDFE Act. It is further submitted that investigation was completed and criminal charges were made out and case is being charged against the petitioner as Accused No.A3. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also placed written instructions, wherein it is stated that the said criminal case is in the 6. Further it is stated that the petitioner deliberately crime stage only, suppressed about the crime case. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.01.2025. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others^. ^ MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022 " 2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP) -.— jf 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader for Home and also perused the material placed on record. 8. It appears that the respondent No.2 is under the premise that the petitioner herein is involved in a criminal case and he applied for passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that at present only one criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the same is at the crime stage i.e., Cr.No.279 of 2021 on the file of the Chirala Rural Police Station. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner is contrary to the law. 9. For more understanding. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is extracted hereunder: "Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— {a)that the applicant is not a citizen of India; {b)that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; {cjthat the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; i^that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; [ejthat the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than fwo years; (flthat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; [glthat a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; [h}that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation iilthat in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. The issue of renewal of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. 10. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose. It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great 11. significance. In NarigeRavindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows; 12. 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. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all ^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 m 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. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the present writ petition is disposed of. 14. Further, the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case and issue/renew the passport to the petitioner for a period of three (03) years, if otherwise the applications are in order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. f % 15. This order shall not preclude the Respondents from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioners for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N, NAGAMMA ASSISTANT registrar OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport officer, Regional Passport office, Vijayawada, Krishna District(Presently NTR District) 3. The Station House Officer, Chirala Rural Police Station, Chirala, now Bapatia District. 4. One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC] 6. Two CC’s to GP for Home, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. 1. ssb w A HIGH COURT DATED:06/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2253 of 2025 * 2 1 FEB 2025 m . CurreiU ddciton <9 Co, DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS