APHC010571792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29627/2025 Between: 1. NIMMAKA JAYAKRISHNA, S/O GOPALA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC MLA, PALAKONDACONSTITUENCY, R/O D.NO.2-88, MOKSARAJAPURAM VILLAGE, VEERAGHATTAMMANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT-532460 ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CPV AND OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF PASS PORTOFFICER, PSP DIVISION MINISTRY OF EXTERNALAFFAIRS, ROOM NO. 8, PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI. 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, D.NO.39-6-71, BOTCHA SQUARE, KAPPARADA VILLAGE, OPP BIRLA JUNCTION MURALI NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SEETHAMPET P.S, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALAKONDA, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. ...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 a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in issuing passport of the petitioner pursuant to his application vide Application vide Application No.1065714623925, dt.30.09.2025 under the guise of pendency of Criminal Case vide Cr.No.82/2023 on the file of the Seethampeta Police Station, Crime No.55/2024 on the file of the Seethampeta Police Station and Crime No.88/2024 on the file of the Palakonda Police Station, Parvathipuram Manyam District without assigning any valid reasons as illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, perverse, unfair, biased, preposterous, whimsical, capricious, unconscionable, unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of natural Justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair-play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to consequentially direct the respondents to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner without reference to the said cases. IA 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 to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner without reference to the said crimes forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. BACHINA HANUMANTHA RAO (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri B. Rama Shankara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. The petitioner made an application vide Reference No.25-1062412610 and File No.VS1065714623925, dated 30.09.2025, seeking to issue fresh passport to the petitioner. Pursuant to his application, the respondent authorities have not processed his application due to the submission of an adverse verification report by the Police i.e., his involvement in Crime Nos.82 of 2023 and 55 of 2024 on the file of Seethampeta Police Station and Crime No.88 of 2024 on the file of Palakonda Police Station, Parvathipuram Manyam District. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of criminal cases is not a bar to issue passport to the petitioner and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order, dated 26.09.2024, passed by this Court in W.P. No.18328 of 2024. 4. At the hearing, Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 6, submits that the concerned Police with regard to Crime Nos.82 of 2023 and 55 of 2024 on the file of Seethampeta P.S. filed charge sheets on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Palakonda vide C.C. No.811 of 2023 and S.T.C. No.267 of 2024 and insofar as Crime No.88 of 2024 on the file of Palakonda P.S. is concerned, after investigation the Palakonda P.S. also filed charge sheet vide S.T.C. No.294 of 2024. Since the competent criminal Courts have taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Courts. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.383 of 2024, considered the said aspect of cognizance by the Court in a criminal case vis-à-vis 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 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.” 6. In the case on hand, the Criminal Courts have taken cognizance and issued summons. Once the criminal Courts have taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Courts and make an appropriate application. 7. Apart from the above discussion, in the case on hand, the petitioner without approaching the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Courts, has straightaway approached this Court. The petitioner was expected to submit his explanation. This Court does not find, in the facts of this case, infringement of right, if any, of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned. 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 Court concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Passports Act and the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 05.11.2025 KAS 58 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29627/2025 Dated: 17.10.2025 KAS