IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) A THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY (Sl|< ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE Vo, PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3861 OF 2025 Between; Tummala Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o Tummala Hah Babu, Aged about 48 years, R/o 74-24-24, Dhanekulavari Street, Ashoknagar Vijayawada, NTR District - 520007 ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union Of India, Department of External Affairs New, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs South Block Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110004. 2. The Passport Authority of India, Rep by its Chief Passport Officer Ministry of External Affairs, PSP Division, Room No. 8, Patiala House Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001. 3. The Regional Passport Office, Venkateswara Theatre Complex MG Road, Opp Radio Station Road, Vijayawada- 520610. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents insisting to surrender the Petitioner Passport bearing No. C6776771 in accordance with the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 as arbitrary, unjust and illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to renew the petitioner passport bearing No. C6776771 VJ2077271681525. may in vide Application No. 4 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 Respondents not to stop the Petitioner in the Airport on his travel as scheduled on 16.02.2025 from Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad to Singapore via Singapore Airlines Ltd, ticket no. 618 2460900287 with his passport bearing No. C6776771 pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL) The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010073692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] ■Ji:7 THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3861/2025 Between: Tummala Venkata Krishna Rao ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following ORDER:- This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: 1. “...to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in insisting to surrender the Petitioner’s Passport bearing No.06776771 in accordance with the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 as arbitrary, unjust and illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to renew the petitioner passport bearing No.06776771 vide Application No VJ2077271681525anc/ to pass such other order or orders...” 2 The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was issued a passport with a validity of 10 years on 24.04.2015, which was set to expire 23.04.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for renewal of the passport on 03.01.2025. Upon receiving the application, the 3rd respondent renewed the passport and issued a new one. 2. on The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after considering the renewal application of the petitioner, the 3'"' respondent issued a new passport bearing No. C6776771 on 03.01.2025. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued a letter dated 22.01.2025, directing the petitioner to surrender the passport by way of a show-cause notice. The notice was issued the ground that the petitioner had suppressed information regarding a pending criminal case while seeking renewal of the passport. 3. on 4. In pursuance of the notice dated 22.01.2025, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 03.02.2025, stating that the said criminal case was only at the FIR stage and that no summons had been received in connection with Crime No. 353 of 2023. The case was registered under Section 9(2) of the A.P. Gaming Act and Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act at Gannavaram UPS, Krishna District. The petitioner further stated that he had knowledge about the subject crime. Therefore, he contends that there was obligation to disclose the matter to the 3rd respondent at the time of renewal till summons were issued after cognizance. He further submits that issuing a show-cause notice and insisting on the surrender of the passport. no no 3 despite his explanation, is contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. Hence, the writ petition. r 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents furnished written instructions wherein it is stated that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding Crime No. 353 of 2023, which was registered on 20.07.2023 under the aforementioned provisions of law. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued on 22.01.2025. He further submits that, since the petitioner had provided an explanation in pursuance of the notice on 03.02.2025, the same would be duly considered and appropriate orders would be passed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels, it is appropriate 7. to look into the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, as extracted herein under: “Section 6(2): Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— {a)that the applicant is not a citizen of India; {b)that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; [cjthat the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; 4 '4 (^that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; [ejthat the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (fjthat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminai court in India; (glthat a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; {iTjthat the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation [ilthat in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. The issue of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 8. 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose. 9. It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: 10. W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 5 “6. The Apex Court in the 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. 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." 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." Having considered the submissions of both parties, it is observed that 11. the respondents cannot deny the renewal of the passport or insist on its surrender solely on the ground of a pending criminal case unless the matter has been taken cognizance of by concerned original court. In view of the facts stated above, the present writ petition is disposed 12. of by directing the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with reference to the judgment as extracted above. Till the date of orders to be passed by the respondents, there shall be no insistence on surrender. There shall be no order as to costs. ".I'L'.-Lil.'! 6 % shall stand miscellaneous applications pending if any Consequently closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU assistant. REGISTRAR TTofficer / ! //TRUE COPY// SE To, The Principal Secretary, Union of India, Department of External Affairs New Ministry of External Affairs South Block Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110004. The Chief Passport Officer, Passport Authority of India, Ministry of External Affairs, PSP Division, Room No. 8, Patiala House, Tilak Marg New Delhi-110001. The Regional Passport Office, Venkateswara Theatre Complex, MG Road, Opp Radio Station Road, Vijayawada- 520610. One CC to Sri K V Aditya Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. RAM HIGH COURT DATED:20/02/2025 ? 1 7 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section g> ORDER WP.No.3861 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS