IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) j MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUArI*^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3686 OF 2025 9 lf{ Between: Sreerama Kumar Gundlapalli, S/o. Srinivasulu Gundlapalli, aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.3-146-16-2, Maya Bazar, B.K. Palli, Madanapalle, Annamayya District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of External Affairs, South Block Secretariat Building, Raisina Hill, New Delhi-110001 2. The Joint Secretary PSP and Chief Passport Officer, Passport Seva Programme Division Ministry of External Affairs Room No.27, Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 4th Floor, Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Government, M.G.Road, Vijayawada- 520002. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Rayachoty, Annamayya District. ...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 a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'^'^ Respondent in not Renewing petitioner's Passport application vide No. VJ1076792920724 dated.29.07.2024 and releasing /issuing to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and rules made thereunder and also violative of |l ' Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forth with Renew petitioner's passport and issue the passport in favour of the petitioner. 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 3^^ Respondent to Renew petitioner's passport as well as issue the same in favour of the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MD. SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR{CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010067132025 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: 3686/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Sreerama Kumar Gundlapalli AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 2 NV, J W.P.No.3686of2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “...to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in not Renewing petitioners Passport application vide No.VJ1076792920724 dated 29.07.2024 and releasing /issuing to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and rules made thereunder and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forth with Renew petitioners passport and issue the passport in favour of the petitioner and to pass. ” The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for renewal of the 2. rd passport vide application Ho.VJ1076792920724, dated 29.07.2024. The 3 respondent had issued letter No.SCN/320417527/25, dated 04.01.2025 seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport, as it was evident from the Police Verification Report that the petitioner has been involved in criminal cases vide Crime No.411 of 2021 of Gangavaram Police Station Crime No.619, 622 of 2021 of Tirupathi East Police Station, Crime No. 1010 of 2021 of Madanapalle II town Police Station, Crime No.899 of 2022 of Madanapalle I town Police Station, Crime No.98 of 2022 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada City, Crime No.234 of 2022 of Tulluru Police Station, Guntur City, Crime No.287 of 2022 of Ananthapur IV Town Police Station, Crime No.79 of 2023 of Madanapalle I town Police Station, Crime No.74 of 2024 of Mudivedu Police Station, and C.C.No.181 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate r 3 NVJ W.P.No.3686of 2025 Madanapalle. Though the petitioner had explained with regard to pendency of the criminal cases, the 3'^^ respondent did not consider for renewal of the passport. Hence, the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaints were lodged based on false allegations and except that there is no offence. He further submits that the action of the respondent authorities more particularly the 3'"* respondent 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. 3. 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 catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union oflndia^ 4. in Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent, placed on record the written instructions of the Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, dated 20.02.2025, wherein it is stated that LW.8, Sri K. Naga Viswanadh, Sub Inspector of Police, 6. " 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 4 NV, J W.P.No.3686 of 2025 SN Puram PS, Vijayawada, registered a case in Cr.No.98/2022 under Sections 188, 341, 353, 290 R/W 34 IPC, Section 32 of Police Act, on the file of the Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada, and served 41 (A) Cr.P.C notices to all the accused, investigated the case, and filed a charge sheet and it is in PT vide CC.No.636/2022 on the file of the learned 111 Additional Judicial Magistrate court, Vijayawada. \ Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as 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 applicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Court below where the 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 7. GSR 570(E). Learned Assistant Government Pleader 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 8. him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 4'^ respondent. Perused the 9. material available on record. ^ W.P.No.1392 ofaD23, dated 07.03.2023 5 NV,J W.P.No.3686 of 2025 In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case (3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with various case laws on the subject and passed a detailed order. The operative portion of which reads as follows;- 10. (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on compiiance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminai case in the Court concerned for triai, is rejected, (b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the of the petitioners covered under ciause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the Passports Act, for renewai of the passport, on production of the order from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial, (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. Further, in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, and the relevant portion of which reads cases 11. as follows;- 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).” 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. ” 9. 10. 11. 6 NV, J W.P.No.3686 of 2025 In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others , the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows; 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 fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." the 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 observedas 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^ 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. The In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of direction to the 3^^^ respondent to consider the application of 13. the writ petition with a the petitioner, and renew his passport for a period of three (03) years, in with law, without raising any objection relating to the criminal cases accordance vide Crime No.411 of 2021 2021 of Tirupathi town Police Station, Crime No.899 of 2022 of Madanapalle I town Police Station, of 2022 of Tulluru Police Station, Guntur City, Crime No.287 of of Gangavaram Police Station, Crime No.619, 622 of East Police Station, Crime No. 1010 of 2021 of Madanapalle II Crime No.234 W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 7 NV, J W.P.No.3686 of 2025 2022 of Ananthapur IV Town Police Station, Crime No.79 of 2023 of Madanapalle I town Police Station, Crime No.74 of 2024 of Mudivedu Police Station, Crime No.98 of 2022 of Satyanarayana Puram Police Station, Vijayawada, C.C.No.181 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle, and C.C.No.636 of 2022 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate court, Vijayawada, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above said directions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain NOC from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required before the Court. 14. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking necessary steps to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRiNJVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. The Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Union of India, Secretariat Building, Raisina Hill, New Delhi-110001 2. The Joint Secretary PSP and Chief Passport Officer, Passport Seva Programme Division Ministry of External Affairs Room No.27, Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 4th Floor, Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Government, M.G.Road, Vijayawada- 520002. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Rayachoty, Annamayya District. 5. One CC to Sri Md. Saleem, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar(Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] 7. Two CC’s to GP for Home, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3686 of 2025 o 5 2 7 MAH 2025 ^ . Current Section , DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS