IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10879 OF 2025 Between; Osuru Sankarappa, S/o. Osuru Munaswamy, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Retd Government Servant, R/o. D.No. 28/83/12, Kothapeta, Punganur, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner/s AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. Rep., by its Under Secretary, 2. The Regional Pass Port Authority, Vijayawada 11, Vijayawada, Rep., by its Pass Port Officer. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. The Station House Officer, Punganur, Chittoor 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 a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 in reissuing the passport to the petitioner on the application submitted by the petitioner with File No. VJ1076976854724, dated 27-09-2024, referring to pendency of the crime No. 303 of 2024 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 409,406,420,465,466.467,468,471,506,120 IPC r/w 34 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well established legal principles, apart from being voilative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to reissue the Pass Port on the application submitted by the petitioner with File No. VJ1076976854724, dated 27-09-2024 without referring to the pendency FIR.No.303/2022, dated 09-09-2022 on the file of the respondent No.4 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 respondent No.2 to reissue the Pass Port on the application submitted by the petitioner with File No. VJ1076976854724, dated 27-09-2024 without referring to the pendency FIR.No. 303/2022, dated 09-09-2022 on the file of the respondent No.4 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI K. VENKATESWARLU CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI AJAY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: APHC010208202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] m THURSDAY .THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10879/2025 Between: Osuru Sankarappa ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in reissuing the passport, in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner vide File No.VJ 1076976854724, dated 27.09.2024, due to the pendency of a criminal case in Cr.No.303 of 2024 of Punganur Urban Police Station, is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Smt. S. Parineeta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Venkateswarlu, learned Central Government counsel, appeared for SRS.J W.P.No.10879 of 2025 respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for respondents 3 & 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, a retired Government employee, was falsely implicated in Cr.No.303 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120b r/w 34, 166 of IPC. The petitioner made an application for renewal of the passport. Respondent No.2 issued a shortfall notice dated 26.10.2024 (Ex.P1), due to an adverse police verification report. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner orally explained to the authority that the pendency of a crime is no ground to deny renewal of the passport. Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted the instructions of respondent No.4. The said instructions would reveal that though the police filed a final report, the jurisdictional court has not taken cognisance so far. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India', observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone. 6. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others^, observed as under: 4. 5. "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 ' (1978) 1 see 248): AIR 1978 Se 597 ^ LAWS 2019(2) see Online Se 2048 '^Page 3 of 5 SRS,J W.P.No.10879 of 2025 which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right." The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi^ observed as follows: 7. “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.” 8. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024, considered the said aspect of cognisance by the Court in a criminal case vis-a-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.” Thus, as seen from the expressions in the above authorities and material available on record, the jurisdictional Court has not taken cognisance so far. Hence, directing the petitioner to approach the jurisdictionalCourt does ^2013 (15) see Page 570 9. Page 4 of 5 SRS,J W.P.No.10879 of 2025 not arise. Mere pendency of a criminal case is no bar in renewing the passport. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2 to renew/re-issue the passport of the petitioner, in pursuance of the application made vide File No.VJI076976854724, dated 27.09.2024, without reference to Cr.No.303 of 2024 of Punganur Urban P.S. If the petitioner intends to go abroad, the petitioner shall get permission from the jurisdictional Court, and without such permission, the petitioner shall not misuse the travel document. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sect/^^officer 1. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs Delhi. 2. The Pass Port Officer, Regional Pass Port Authority Vijayawada, The Commissioner of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Station House Officer, Punganur, Chittoor District. 4. One CC to SMT. S PARINEETA Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI K. VENKATESWARLU COUNSEL [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra 7. Three CD Copies To, , New Vijayawada II, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Pradesh. [OUT] sree HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.10879 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS