APHC010079042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4220/2025 Between: Janardha Reddy Vallapureddy ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S.NAGESWARAREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Raja Dharmaji Rao, learned counsel representing Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Srinivas, learned central Government counsel appeared for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appeared for respondents 3 and 4. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of 2nd respondent in not processing the application made by the petitioner vide File No.VJ3076978311124 and issuing passport to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the passport was granted to the petitioner, initially in the year 2000, for a period of ten years and renewed in the year 2010 for another ten years. A criminal case was pending against the petitioner vide SC/ST SC No.162/2018 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.193 of 2023 under Section 10(7) of the Passports Act, 1967 seeking renewal/issuing of passport. The learned Judge disposed of the application by order dated 11.07.2023 giving no objection to the petitioner to obtain passport. (b) Accordingly, the passport was issued to the petitioner vide No.B9880226 for one year from 07.02.2024 to 06.02.2025. The petitioner made application on 27.09.2024 seeking renewal of passport. The 2nd respondent directed the police to submit verification certificate. Based upon the adverse report, the 2nd respondent issued letter vide Ref.No.SCN/319650389/24 dated 03.10.2024 seeking for explanation. The petitioner attended the 2nd respondent‟s office and submitted explanation on 28.10.2024. (b) The petitioner pleaded that the aforementioned criminal case was transferred to VI Additional SC/ST Court-cum-Additional District Court, Ananthapur and renumbered as SC/ST SC No.96/2023. (c) Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that non- issuance/renewal of passport, is contrary to the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.468 of 2025 dated 22.01.2025. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that since a criminal case is pending and the jurisdictional court has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach that court and has to make an application. Both the learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, made an application and the same was entertained. 3 5. No doubt, the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.468 of 2025 directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner therein and renew the passport for two (2) years without raising any objections relating to the criminal case CC No.19 of 2020 pending on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. 6. A Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.10.2024 in W.A.No.383 of 2024, considered Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the judicial proceedings pending against individual and taking cognizance by the Magistrate and observed as under: “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.” 7. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 29.10.2024 in W.A.No.383 of 2024 was not brought to the notice of the learned single judge. The Division Bench specifically observed that, in that case that the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance and thus, directing the petitioner therein to approach the criminal court, is impermissible. 8. However, in the case at hand, in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench, since the criminal court has taken cognizance, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side giving liberty to the petitioner to approach concerned court where criminal case is pending and make an application. Upon making such 4 application, the learned Judge shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders regarding renewal / issuing passport to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, strictly as per the Rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 01.04.2025 KA 5 86 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4220/2025 Date: 01.04.2025 KA