APHC010099942025 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: 5311/2025 Between: 1. DADI SUBBA RAO, S/O LATE SAMBA SIVA RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC RETIRED TEACHER 2. DADI VENKATA LAXMI RAJYAM, W/O DADI SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF H.NO. 1-147/I, SOUTH BAZAR, RAMALAYAM, PERAVALI VILLAGE, VEMURU MANDAL, BAPATLA DIST ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTERY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, O/O REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 4TH PIOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVERNORPET, M.G.ROAD VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ...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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2 not issued passport applications vide File No.VJB066394821924 dated 26.03.2024 of petitioner No.l, VJB066394782724 dated 26.03.2024 of Petitioner No.2 without considering the explanation dated 17.04.2024 is highly illegal, arbitrary and SRS,J W.P.No.5311 of 2025 against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to consider the explanation dated 17.04.2024 issue the pass port of the petitioners through their application File No.VJB066394821924 dated 26.03.2024 of petitioner No.l, VJB066394782724 dated 26.03.2024 of Petitioner No.2 in the interest of justice 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 direct the respondent No.2 to consider the explanation dated 17.04.2024 issue the pass port of the petitioners through their application File No.VJB066394821924 dated 26.03.2024 of petitioner No.l, VJB066394782724 dated 26.03.2024 of Petitioner No.2in the interest of justice pending writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VSRMV PRASAD SANAKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in re-issuing/renewing the passports of the petitioners, in pursuance of applications vide File Nos.VJB066394821924 & VJB066394782724, dated 26.03.2024, without considering the explanation dated 17.03.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Naga Anjaneyulu, learned counsel representing Sri VSRMV Prasad Sankara, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jupudi Yagnadutt, learned counsel representing Sri G. Sai Nrayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2. Page 3 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.5311 of 2025 3. The 1st petitioner is a retired Government employee, and the 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd son of the petitioners has been residing in Scotland, due to his employment. The petitioners have made applications to respondent No.2 vide Exs.P1 & P2, for issuance of passports. In the applications, it was mentioned that a criminal case vide C.C.No.1990 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act, is pending on the file of the learned XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal. Thereafter, show-cause notices dated 02.04.2024 vide Exs.P3 & P5, were issued to the petitioners by respondent No.2, calling upon the petitioners to submit an explanation. The petitioners approached respondent No.2 and submitted an explanation. The petitioners have filed Crl.P.No.5295 of 2022 before the Telangana High Court, wherein the learned Single Judge granted a stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.1990 of 2021, concerning the petitioners arrayed as A2 & A3. In respect of A1 (elder son), there is a direction to proceed with the criminal case. 4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that due to the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioners, respondent No.2 did not issue a passport to the petitioners. Learned Assistant Government pleader and standing counsel would contend that since a criminal case is pending before the jurisdictional magistrate and the Court has taken cognisance, the petitioner has to approach the concerned court. 5. The point for consideration is: Whether non-issuance of a passport, due to the pendency of a criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act, is legally sustainable? 6. Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), envisages applications for passports, travel documents etc. and others SRS,J W.P.No.5311 of 2025 thereon. Section 6 of the Act envisages refusal of passports, travel documents etc. 7. Section 6 (2) (f) of the Act is extracted herewith: (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: …….. (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; 8. Mere pendency of a criminal case does not mean that the guilt against the accused is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi, 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.” 9. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others, 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." 10. In the case at hand, no doubt a criminal case vide C.C.No.1990 of 2021, is pending. However, the learned Single Judge of Telangana High Court SRS,J W.P.No.5311 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.5295 of 2022, granted a stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.1990 of 2021 in respect of the petitioners. The petitioners approaching the learned magistrate, given the stay in the criminal case, will not serve any purpose. Keeping the expressions of the Apex Court in the referred judgments, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the authorities to consider the applications made by the petitioners for issuance of passports. 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and since a stay was granted by the Telangana High Court in the aforementioned criminal case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to process the applications made by the petitioners as per the provisions of the Act, within three (03) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 10.03.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.5311 of 2025 198 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.5311 OF 2025 Date : 10.03.2025 TVN