IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NQ: 2381 OF ?n?<^ AMARAVATI §■ -c o C>. ZH ★ ^ Between: Alla Venkata Reddy, S/o A.Lakshmareddi, Agriculturist R/o D.No. 1-62, Jonnalagadda Village A.P.-522034. aged about 60 years, Occ: _ , Guntur, Guntur District, ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Government of India Ministry of Home and External Affairs, MHA, North Block Central Secretariat Delhi. New 2. Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office Vijayawada. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 4. The Station House Officer, Tadikonda P.S. A.P. Guntur District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue of India praying that in - in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court a writ, order or direction more particularly nature of MANDAMUS declaring the action of 2 may one in the respondent in not VJ2076670955724 nd renewing petitioner's passport vide application No. under the guise of pendency of the F.I.R.No.124 of 2017 on the file of 4'^ respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles Constitution of India and 14 and 21 of the consequently direct the 2^^^^ respondent to issue X passport in furtherance of application vide.no VJ2076670955724 made by petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF lO-PR Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to direct the 2'’'^ praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be respondent to process passport renewal application made by the petitioner vide No.VJ2076670955724 passport to the petitioner without raising any objections relating to the FIR No. 124 of 2017 on the file of 4**^ and issue respondent pending disposal of the main Writ Petition for immediate travel needs. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALAPATI LALITH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: NIKHIL SRI G.ARUN SHOWRI, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER V APHC010045982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY.THE THIRTEENTHDAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2381/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Alla Venkata Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ALAPATI LALITH NIKHIL Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR HOME 2.G.ARUN SHOWRI(CENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER:- This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: "... to issue a writ order or direction more particuiarly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in not renewing petitioners passport vide application no VJ2076670955724 under the guise of pendency of the F I R No 124 of 2017 on the file of 4th respondent as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue passport in furtherance of application vide no VJ2076670955724 made by petitioner and to pass such other order or orders... ” 1. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner herein applied for renewal of the passport vide application File No. VJ2076670955724, dated 05.06.2024 before Respondent No.2. Later, respondent No.2 herein had issued a letter dated 03.07.2024 seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport as it is evident from the police verification report that the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case in FIR No. 124 of 2017 on the file ofTadikonda Police Station. Pursuant to which the petitioner submitted a written explanation dated 29.07.2024 along with renewal application to the Respondent Authorities. 3. Pursuant to the petitioner’s explanation, respondent No.2 issued a 4. letter dated 06.01.2025 stating that the petitioner has suppressed the material information regarding pendency of criminal case in his passport Application. Then petitioner was requested to furnish either order of Acquittal or quashment of FIR or No Objection Certificate from the concerned Court as per Gazette Notification GSR 570(E), dated 25.08.1993 along with an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authorities that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuation of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is serious 5. urgency for the petitioner that his wife’s passport was already renewed and they have to travel abroad and she alone cannot travel and she needs the petitioner’s assistance. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India''. 6. 1 1978 AIR 597 7. 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 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted the written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated 06.02.2025, wherein it is stated that L. Venkatarao, lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Tadikonda P S, Guntur District on 13.07.2017. 8. Basing on the contents of the complaint a case was registered as Crime No. 124 of 2017 under Section 447 IPC before Tadikonda P.S. against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer examined as many as 6 witnesses and recorded their detailed statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. After detailed investigation the case was referred as “CIVIL IN NATURE” vide C.No.180/Refer/SDPO-Thullur/2024, dated 31.10.2024. It is submitted that except Antecedent/Verification of the petitioner and submission to the passport authority, the respondent No.4 is no way concern to issue of the passport to the petitioner, only the respondent No.2 is the answering respondent in the present writ petition. It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned Judge in Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case^, the petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him. 2 W.P.NO.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 5 W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 k i. % counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel respondents and perused the material placed on record. Heard the learned 9. for the Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt detailed order., the In Kadar Valli Shaik’s with various case law on operative portion of which reads as follows.- 10. the subject and passed a seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without with the notification dated 25.08.1993, of the criminal case in the Court (a) The prayer of writ petitioners insisting on compliance notwithstanding the pendency concerned for trial, is rejected. the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (b) A direction is issued to the cases of the petitioners (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. order from the concerned Court, as for renewal shall not be rejected on the in Court, but subject under notification dated (c) On production of an aforesaid, the application ground of mere pendency of the criminal case compliance of other requirements . to 25.08.1993. learned Judge of this Court dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a disposed of the same vide orders which reads as follows; - 11. 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 cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance renewal of the passport would be depended on no objection being given by the concerned Court. V. or The Central Government has also issued 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 10. 6(2)(f). In view of the fact that Section 6(2) (f) would arise only when there is a pending proceedings before the Criminal Court after cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court.” In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows; 11. 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 the fundamental rights including the right to ^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 -.r 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." Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the present writ petition is allowed. 14. case Further the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case and issue the passport to the petitioner for a period of three (03) years, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 15. 16. This order shall not preclude the respondents 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. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Secretary, Union of India, Government of India, Ministry of Home & External Affairs, MHA, North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi. The Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office Vijayawada. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Station House Officer, Tadikonda P.S., Guntur District. One CC to Sri Alapati Lalith Nikhil, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri G.Arun Showr, Central Government Counsel, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copples. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. gi HIGH COURT DATED:13/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2381 of 2025 AND#^ X 19 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS