IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUAI TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3333 OF 2025 Between; Durga Bhavani S, W/o. Venkateshwara Raju Samantapudi, aged about 58 years, Home Maker, R/o. Door no21-10/5-77A, Gokul street, Srinagar, Vijayawada -520011, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Represented by its Principal Secretary, South Block, New Delhi-110 001. The Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, Office located at Near Venkateshwara Theatre Complex, 0pp. All India Radio, MG Road (Bandar Road) Vijayawada, NTR District - 500 003. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi. Women Police Station, Vijayawada City, Represented by its Station House Officer, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. 3. 4. ...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 appropriate writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring that the action of the 2"^ Respondent in not considering the passport renewal application no. VJ2077249895924 dated 27.12.2024 of the Petitioner seeking renewal of the passport bearing No. Y6231009 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980 and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents to renew the Petitioner's passports bearing Nos. Y6231009 fora period of 10 years in view of judgments of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. Nos. 10166 of 2024, 7714 of 2022, 9356 of 2023, 1392 of 2023 and W.P.No. 29505 of 2024. 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 forthwith to process the passport renewal application no. VJ2077249895924 dated 27.12.2024 seeking renewal of the passport bearing No. Y6231009 for 10 years without reference to criminal case and accordingly renew the passport to the Petitioner for a period of 10 years. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: SRI G.ARUN SHOWRI (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondents 3 & 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010062062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3333/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Durga Bhavani S AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR 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: 1. . .to issue any appropriate writ order or direction one more particularly nd in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 2 Respondent in not considering the passport renewal application no.VJ2077249895924 dated 27.12.2024 of the Petitioner seeking renewal of the passport bearing No.Y6231009 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to 2 > NV,J W.P.No.3333 of 2025 the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Ruies, 1980 and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents to renew the Petitioner’s passports bearing NOS.Y6231009 for a period of 10 years in view of judgments of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.Nos.10166 of 2024, 7714 of 2022, 9356 of 2023, 1392 of 2023 and W. P.29505 of 2024 and pass....” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. Petitioner herein is a passport holder bearing passport Ho.Y6231009 for a period of 10 years. Vide application No. VJ2077249895924 dated 27.12.2024, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same. 4. Respondent No.2 herein had issued letter No.SCN/320445089/25 dated 08.01.2025 seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport, as it was evident from the police verification report that the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.148 of 2020 on the file of Mahila UPS, Vijayawada and registered as C.C.No.765 of 2024 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. Though the petitioner had explained with regard to pendency of the criminal case, the 2 nd respondent did not consider for renewal of the passport. Hence, the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the complaint was lodged based on false allegations and except that, there is no offence. He further submits that the action of Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and 5. 3 4 NV,J W.P.No.3333 of 2025 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. 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 lndia\ 6. 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 7. passport On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the 8. written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities wherein it is stated you are/were that as per the Police verification Report received involved/accused/convicted in criminal court cases vide Cr.No.148/2020 under section 498-A, 417 IPC, 3, DPA of Mahila UPS, Vijayawada and it was numbered as C.C.No.765 of 2024 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and it is in trial stage. It is further submitted that the respondents per the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, when a criminal case is pending against the applicant in any Criminal Court, the as ^1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 4 NV,J W.P.No.3333of2025 applicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Court below where case is pending along with GSR 570(E) undertaking. Hence, if the Court gives permission to the applicant to travel abroad and directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E). 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. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for 10. the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt 11. with various case law on the subject and passed a detailed order., the operative portion of which reads as follows:- (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent ■■ passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected. (b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (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. ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 5 # NV,J W.P.No.3333 of 2025 (c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993. C Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court 12. disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as foHows:- 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 or renewal of the passport would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court. 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 6(2)(f). ’’ 9. 10. 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. ” 11. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others'^, the 13. Higher Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: “ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 6 NV,J W.P.No.3333 of 2025 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 obsen/ed 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 liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 1. 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. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner, and renew her passport for a period of two (02) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the criminal case vide Crime No.148 of 2020 on the file of Mahila UPS, Vijayawada and registered as C.C.No.765 of 2024 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. BBS 7 WVJ W.P.No.3333 of 2025 15. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, she shall obtain prior permission (NOC) from the Court concerned for such travel and shall before the trial Court, whenever her presence is required by the Court. appear 16. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution 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. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs South Block, New Delhi-110 001. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, Office located at Near Venkateshwara Theatre Complex, 0pp. All India Radio, MG Road (Bandar Road) Vijayawada, NTR District - 500 003. 3. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 4. pe Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Vijayawada City Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri G.Arun Showri, (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies RAM f HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 I n MAR 2025 n ^ . Curreni aecuon . ^ ORDER WP.No.3333 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS