APHC010085902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4740/2025 Between: 1. BAILRAJU BALARAJU, S/O. SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2/126, HANUMAN TEMPLE, BOMMAVARAM VILLAGE 8C, POST, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. NOW RESIDING IN KUWAIT. REP BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER. LAVIDI GANGU RAJU ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK. NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE EMBASSY OF INDIA, KUWAIT REP BY ITS AMBASSADOR DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE, ARABIAN GULF STREET, P.O. BOX 1450, SAFAT-13015, KUWAIT. 3. PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 4. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO. 27- 37-158, GOVERNORPET, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA- 520002 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, OBULAVARIPALLI POLICE SRS,J W.P.No.4740 of 2025 STATION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter vide No.KUW/CONS/OBJ/4148/2024, dated 30.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 in not renewing the passport vide No.M6714975 of the petitioner on the ground of registration of criminal case against the petitioner vide F.LR.No.44 of 2024, dated 03.03.2024 on the file of Obulavaripalli Police Station, Annamayya District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Passport Act 1967, judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Honourable High Court and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner vide No.M6714975 for a period of 10 (Ten) years and issue the passport to the petitioner and to pass IA 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 suspend the Letter vide No.KUW/CONS/OBJ/4148/2024, dated 30.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 by directing the respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner vide No.M6714975 for a period of 10 (Ten) years as per application No.24-2001815318, dated 17.04.2024 and issue the passport to petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT 2. GP FOR HOME SRS,J W.P.No.4740 of 2025 The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Niranjan, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner, resident of Bommavaram Village, Obulaaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District, moved to Kuwait in 2003 for livelihood. The petitioner holds a passport bearing No.M6714975, issued from 20.06.2015 to 19.06.2025. The petitioner made an application vide No.24-2001815318, dated 17.04.2024, to respondent No.2 to re-issue/renew the passport. Due to an adverse police verification report, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 30.04.2024 (Ex.P1), calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. Another notice dated 25.09.2024, was issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not respond to the aforementioned notices. The petitioner has a Civil ID, and the same will expire by 02.05.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, to obtain a Civil ID, the applicant must possess a passport with at least two years' validity. Learned counsel also filed an additional affidavit of General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the petitioner will come down to India in August, 2025 and take necessary steps in connection with STC No.93 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted the written instructions of respondent No.5. A perusal of instructions would indicate that a case in Cr.No.44 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 9(2) of AP Gaming Act (Cock Fight) of Obulavaraipalli PS, was registered against the SRS,J W.P.No.4740 of 2025 petitioner and 12 others, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.12. A notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C was served on the petitioner on 03.03.2024. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Koduru on 16.03.2024, and the same was numbered as STC No.93 of 2024. The jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognisance. 5. Sri T. Niranjan, learned Standing Counsel, would submit that, because of the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, respondent No.2 did not renew the passport of the petitioner. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation1, observed that the refusal of a passport can only occur in cases where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately after receipt of the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years. 7. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 deals with a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2, observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone. 9. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others3, 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 1 2020 Crl.L.J (SC) 572 2 (1978) 1 SCC 248): AIR 1978 SC 597 3 LAWS 2019(2) SCC Online SC 2048 SRS,J W.P.No.4740 of 2025 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." 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi4, observed as follows: “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.” 11. In Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India5, a learned Single Judge of this Court observed as follows: “4. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the “renewal” of the passport. 5. This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot “hold” or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving “moral turpitude” to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction 4 2013 (15) SCC Page 570 5 2023 (4) ALT 406 SRS,J W.P.No.4740 of 2025 „and‟ makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post-conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case / cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport. 6. The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred to in the counter affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court.” 12. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that criminal case vide STC No.93 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway SRS,J W.P.No.4740 of 2025 Koduru, is pending against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.12. The petitioner, due to his employment, is in Kuwait and his passport will expire by 19.06.2025. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner will come down to India in August, 2025 and will take necessary steps regarding STC No.93 of 2024. The statement made on behalf of the petitioner by the General Power of Attorney holder is recorded. 13. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the learned respondent No.2 to renew the passport of the petitioner for two (02) years, enabling the petitioner to get a Civil ID. The petitioner shall come down to India, as per the averment made on oath in the additional affidavit in August, 2025 and approach the jurisdictional Court and make an appropriate application before the Court for further orders. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 17.04.2025 Note: Issue C.C by 21.04.2025 B/o. TVN SRS,J W.P.No.4740 of 2025 98 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.4740 OF 2025 Date : 17.04.2025 TVN