IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAJ^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) | FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRU^F TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA , WRIT PETITION NO: 4017 OF 2025 V. Between: Bodepudi Venkateswarlu, S/o. Bodepudi Kotaiah, Aged about 80 years, D/o. 1-54, Pathuru, Kanamarlapudi Post, Savalyapuram Mandal, Kanamarlapudi, Palnadu, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, Represented by it's Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Passport Authority of India, Rep. by it's 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 - Vijayawada, D.No.27-37-158, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, A.P.-520002 4. The Station House Officer, Savalyapuram P.S Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh ...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 declaring action of the respondents in not issuing the petitioners passport vide Application No.ARN- 23-1013537073 dated 06-11-2023 as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, Passport Rules, 1980 and unconstitutional and consequentially direct the respondents to issue the passport to the V petitioner immediately as per the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980. 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 Respondent No.3 to consider the application of the petitioner for issueing of his passport, afresh pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRi SRINiVASU L Counsei for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI THENEPALLI NIRANJAN, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010071722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) % [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4017/2025 Between: Bodepudi Venkateswarlu ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVASU L Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT 2.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “...to issue p Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action respondents in not issuing the petitioner’s passport Application No.23-1013537073 dated 06.11.2023 as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, Passport Rules, 1980 and consequently direct the respondents to issue the passport to the petitioner immediately as per the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980.” 1. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 2. Petitioner herein made an application No.23-1013537073 dated 06.11.2023 and applied for issuance of fresh passport to the Regional 3. Passport officer - Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 herein had issued letter No.SCN/320533171/25 dated 20.01.2025 seeking clarification regarding the issuance of passport, as it was evident from the police verification report that the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case vide Crime No. 147 of 2021 on the file of Savalyapuram 4. Police Station, Palnadu. Though the petitioner had explained with regard to respondent did not consider for rd pendency of the criminal case, the 3 issuance of the passport. Hence, the writ petition. Learfjed counsel for the petitioner submits that, the complainant was lodged based on false allegations and except that, there is no offence. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.3 in not 5. accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying issuance of the passport of the petitioner is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guarante^f-^ under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. 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\ 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 issuance of the passport. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated 04.07.2024, wherein it is stated 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 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). 8. ^ 1978 AIR 597 ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 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. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. 11. In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt 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, (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. 12. 12. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- ’9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.26^nn .WP.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 ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 taken by an appropriate Court that it can be heid that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport V would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court. J' 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 tfiat as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court. ” 11. 13. In Narige Ravindranath Court for the State of Telangana held as follows; vs. The Union of India and others'^, the High f judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Deihi at para 13 observed as ■ under: The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. /\s 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 " noo/onJn ft”'"', ^'’® judgment dated 09M.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC oniine SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of india (UOi) and others at para 4 Observed as under: a ^ "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 f 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. W.P.No.25141 of 2023, date# G3^>10.2023 the light of the 'settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the application of the petitioner, and issue fresh passport for a period of three (03) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the criminal case Crime No.147 of 2021 on the file of Savalyapuram Police Station, Palnadu, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission (NOC) from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. 15. Further, 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. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 16. However, 17. closed. Sd/-B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Secretary, Mirristry of External Affairs, Union of India, South Block, New Delhi. 2 The Chief Passport Officer of External Affairs, Room No.8, Patiala House, Tilak Marg,New 1. The , Passport Authority of India,PSP Division, Ministry Delhi-110 001. 3. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office - Vijayawada, D.No.27'37-158, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, A.P.-520002 P.S Guntur District, Andhra 4. The Station House Officer, Savalyapuram Pradesh 5. One CC to 6 One CC to Sri Thenepalli Niranjan, Central Govt. Counsel [OPU ] , High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] Sri Srinivasu L, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CC’s to GP for Home 8. Three CD Copies, ssb HIGH COURT DATED:28/02/2025 ORDER 1 8 MAR 2025 | ^ Current Section WP.No.4017 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS