IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4733 OF 2025 Between: Kuna Sudheer, S/o K.V. Vaikunta Rao, 43-11-27/2 (A1), Baba Tower, Subbalakshmi Nagar, New Colony, Dondaparthy, Vishakapatnam (Urban), Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, 530016. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Vishakapatnam Police Commissionerate Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Regional Passport Officer, Vishakapatnam, State of 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 issue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4*^ respondent in not Renewing/extending the Passport already issued to the petitioner vide NO.K7847763, dated 06-09-2012 on its expiry date 05-09-2022, in spite of making application for renewal/re-issuance on 11-03-2022 denying the passport on the ground of involvement in Crime No. 406 of 2016 of IV Town Police Station, Vishakaptnam City u/s 420, 498A, r/w 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is illegal and arbitrary and violate Article 19 of Constitution of India and contrary to Sec. 6 sub-sec. (2) clause (F) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967 and contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court and Madras High Court and consequently to direct for renewal and issuance of passport to 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 pass urgent orders by directing the 4‘^ respondent to re-consider the decision to reject the orders refusing to renew the Passport No; K7847763 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. ABDUS SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI THENEPALLI NIRANJAN, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI AJAY, ASST.GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: G TUHIN KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010087382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4733/2025 Between; 1.KUNA SUDHEER, S/0 K.V. VAIKUNTA RAO, 43-11-27/2 (A1), BABA TOWER, SUBBALAKSHMl NAGAR, NEW COLONY, DONDAPARTHY, ANDHRA VISHAKAPATNAM, VISHAKAPATNAM (URBAN), PRADESH, 530016 ...PETITIONER AND 1.UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISHAKAPATNAM POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VISHAKAPATNAM , ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, VISHAKAPATNAM, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not Renewing/ extending the passport already issued to the petitioner vide no.K7847763, dated 06-09-2012 on its expiry application for renewal/ re-issuance on 11-03-2022 denying the passport on date 05-09-2022, in spite of making A the ground of involvement in Crime No. 406 of 2016 of IV Town Police Station, Vishakaptnam City u/s 420, 498A, r/w 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is illegal and arbitrary and violate Article 19 of Constitution of India and contrary to Sec. 6 sub-sec. (2) clause (F) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967 and contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court and Madras High Court and consequently to direct for renewal and issuance of passport to the petitioner and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 209fi 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 pass urgent orders by directing the 4th respondent to re-consider the decision 0 reject the orders refusing to renew the passport no: K7847763 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ABDUS SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GTUHIN KUMAR The Court made the following: ."ORDER:: Heard Sri Abdus Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Niranjan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 4 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner made application dated 11.03.2022 (Ex.P2) for re-issuance of passport, however, the same was not issued. As (Ex.P1), the passport was not issued on the ground of the police verification an seen from the status report dated 27.01.2025 report is not clear and the application is under review at the Regional Passport Office. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially issued a passport on 06.09.2012 for ten years and the same expired 05.09.2022. Even before the expiry period, the petitioner made an not issued. He would on 11.03.2022. However, the same in Crime No.406 of 2016 of IV Town Police Station, was application on submit that the case in registered against the petitioner and others for the Vishakaptnam was offences under Sections 420, 498A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry charge sheet on the file of I Prohibition Act, 1961. Later police filed a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakaptnam. The same numbered as C.C.No.334 of 2018. Learned counsel would also submit that framed by the learned Magistrate and C.C.No.334 of 2018 is was Additional the charges are coming up for trial (examination of witnesses). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that since and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of framed charges, the petitioner has to approach the learned the charges are framed the offences and Magistrate by making a proper application. from the material, there is no dispute about the issuance 06.09.2012 for ten years (Ex.P4). It is also an application for re-issuance of has not been issued so far. As per the mentioned that ‘since the police 5. Thus, as seen of a passport to the petitioner on undisputed fact that the petitioner made an passport on 11.03.2022 and the same status report dated 27.01.2025 (Ex.P1), it was verification report is not clear and the application made by the petitioner is under review at Regional Passport Office . The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024 considered Section 6{2)(f) of Passports Act, 1967 and the judicial proceedings pending against the individual and cognizance disposed of directing the petitioner therein to approach the 6. for the offences by the Magistrate. The writ appeal was 4 jurisdictional Magistrate to seek appropriate orders for re-issuance of passport. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024 observed as follows: “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 question of „proceedings pending before a criminal Court," which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.” In the case at hand, the Criminal Court has taken cognizance, in fact, C.C.No.334 of 2018 is coming up for trial. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this 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 I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam by making proper application to seek appropriate orders. If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass orders keeping in view the judgment passed in Khader Vali Shaik vs. Union of India^ and Parchuri Ashok Babu vs. Union of India^. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. no 7. 8. ^2023 see ONLINE AP 406 ^2022 see ONLINE AP 2188/W.P.NO.30373 of 2022 SD/-K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE eOPY// SEOTION OFFieER To . The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 1 2. The 3. The Commissioner of Police, Vishakapatnam Police Commissionerate Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. The Regional Passport Officer, Vishakapatnam, State of Andhra Pradesh. One CC to Sri Abdus Saleem, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Thenepalli Niranjan, SC for Central Government Counsel. [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. gi -t-" HIGH COURT DATED:10/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.4733 of 2025 * 2 S MAR 2025 g ^ . Current Section . ^<2esi.*Tc«<4>^ o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS