APHC010566342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29430/2025 Between: 1. SRINIVASA RAO MADHAVARAPU, S/O. SUBBARAYADU MADHAVARAPU AGE 44 YEARS R/O.40-9-16 1ST FLOOR SBI COLONY BENZ CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 2. THE PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP BY ITS CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ROOM NO.8, PATIALA HOUSE TILAK MARG NEW DELHI 110 001. 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE 4TH FLOOR STALIN CENTRAL D.NO.27-37-158 GOVERNORPET, M.G.ROAD VIJAYAWADA-520002 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA II TOWN POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA NTR 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 action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioners application made for the issuance Of passport by 2 JS,J W.P.No.29430/2025 application No. VJ2065688927425 dated 29.09.2025 as being illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the petitioners rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of provisions of the Passports Act 1967 and Passport Rules 1980 and consequently direct the respondents to issue the passport to the petitioner forthwith and pass 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 3rd respondent to consider the application No. VJ2065688927425 dated 29.09.2025 for issuing the passport to the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 JS,J W.P.No.29430/2025 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 2. The petitioner is a businessman and a permanent resident of Vijayawada City. He applied for a passport on 25.09.2025, with reference No. VJ2065688927425. The 3rd respondent refused to issue the passport on the ground that Crime No. 76 of 2025 on the file of II Town P.S., Vijayawada, is pending against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final report has not yet been filed before the jurisdictional Court and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a valid reason to deny the issuance of a passport. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that a final report has been filed before the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, vide CF No. 2981 of 2025. However, the Court has not taken cognizance so far. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when a similar question has fallen for consideration before this Court, A Division Bench of this Court has disposed of Writ Appeal No.383 of 2024 by an order dated 29.10.2024 directing the respondents to issue passport to the petitioner without further delay. In paras 16 and 17 of its order, the Division Bench observed as under: “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 4 JS,J W.P.No.29430/2025 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. As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding pendency of the aforementioned crime against the petitioner and the filing of a final report. However, the jurisdictional court has not taken cognizance. Further, unless the guilt is proved, an accused is presumed to be innocent and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for issuing passport. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, since the jurisdictional Court has not taken cognizance, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, directing the 2nd respondent to issue passport to the petitioner, in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner vide VJ2065688927425 dated 25.09.2025, without reference to crime No. 76 of 2025 of II Town P.S., Vijayawada. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 04.11.2025 KAS/CBS 5 JS,J W.P.No.29430/2025 159 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29430/2025 6 JS,J W.P.No.29430/2025 Dated: 04.11.2025 KAS