APHC010484312026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE 28 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26710 OF 2026 Between: 1. KATRU SURESH, S o Raje Rao Aged 45 years residing at H.No.4 69 Appanaramunilanka Village Sakkinetipally Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District 533252 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Home and External Affairs MHA North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi 110 001 2. The Regional Passport Officer Passport Office, Near P.F. Office Beside Rythu Bazxar Marripalem NAD Post Visakhapatnam 530005 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Depart Home Affairs Secretariat Amaravathi 522239 4. The Superintendent of Police Amalapuram, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District 533201 5. The Station House Officer, Sakkinettipally P.S. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District 533252 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26710 OF 2026 1. KATRU SURESH, S o Raje Rao Aged 45 years residing at H.No.4 69 Appanaramunilanka Village Sakkinetipally Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District 533252 AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Home and External MHA North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi 110 001 2. The Regional Passport Officer Passport Office, Near P.F. Office Beside Rythu Bazxar Marripalem NAD Post Visakhapatnam 530005 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Depart Home Affairs Secretariat Amaravathi 522239 4. The Superintendent of Police Amalapuram, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema 5. The Station House Officer, Sakkinettipally P.S. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District 533252 ...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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 1. KATRU SURESH, S o Raje Rao Aged 45 years residing at H.No.4 69 Appanaramunilanka Village Sakkinetipally Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar ...Petitioner 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Home and External MHA North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi 110 001 2. The Regional Passport Officer Passport Office, Near P.F. Office Beside 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of 4. The Superintendent of Police Amalapuram, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema 5. The Station House Officer, Sakkinettipally P.S. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar ...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 2 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in not renewing the petitioners passport vide application No.VS4075587366025 under the guise of pendency of the FIR No.231 of 2020 on the file of 5th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to renewal the passport in furtherance of application vide No. VS4075587366025 made by the petitioner and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 2nd Respondent to renewal the passport in furtherance of application vide No.VS4075587366025 made by the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: V KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: S SRAVANA SANDHYA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME 3 The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is not renewing his passport under the guise of pendency of FIR No.231 of 2020 of Sakhinetipalli Police Station. 2. Heard V.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt Sravana Sandhya, learned Central Government Counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit, submitted that the petitioner made an application dated 03.09.2025 for renewal of his passport. However, the same was kept in abeyance by the passport authorities on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. He further contended that respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice dated 29.09.2025, wherein it was stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 had issued an adverse police verification report alleging that Crime No.231 of 2020 is pending against the petitioner and directed him to obtain the necessary clearance certificate from the concerned officials and submit the same before respondent No.2. He further submitted that, from the date of registration of the aforesaid crime till date, the petitioner has not received any notice or summons either from respondent No.5 or from the Court. He further submitted that respondent No.5 has not filed its final report till date, even though nearly six years have elapsed since the registration of the crime. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot be 4 deprived of his right to obtain a passport merely on account of the pendency of a criminal case. Hence, he prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel, on instructions of respondent No.2 vide Ref. No. PO(VSP)/WP 26710/2026, dated 15.09.2026, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department, on instructions of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sakhinetipalli Police Station, contended that, on 24.10.2020, the Station House Officer served notices on all the accused, including the petitioner, and filed a charge sheet on 04.12.2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole, vide C.C. No.483 of 2024. They further submitted that the petitioner's application has neither been denied nor rejected and is presently under examination, and that the petitioner's passport application will be processed upon receipt of appropriate orders from the concerned Court, in accordance with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, read with G.S.R. 570(E). Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s application for renewal of Passport was withheld on the ground of pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. Learned Central Government Counsel and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department contended that charge sheet was filed against the petitioner along with the other accused and the same was 5 numbered as C.C.No.483 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India1 held that: “It is in exercise of this power that GSR 570(E) was issued, creating a controlled exemption from the bar in Section 6(2) (f) in favour of persons facing criminal proceedings who obtain permission from the concerned court and comply with the conditions set out in that notification.” 8. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India1 held that: “It is in exercise of this power that GSR 570(E) was issued, creating a controlled exemption from the bar in Section 6(2) (f) in favour of persons facing criminal proceedings who obtain permission from the concerned court and comply with the conditions set out in that notification.” 8. It is appropriate to reproduce Notification No.GSR 570(E), dated 25.08.1993 reads as follows: G.S.R. 570(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.G.S.R.298(E), dated the 14th April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of subsection (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued— 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1238 6 i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year; iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order. (b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a) (iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified; (c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued. A bare reading of the terms of gazette Notification GSR No.570-E, dated 25.08.1993 makes it clear that on the ground of pendency of the criminal proceedings, the respondent authorities cannot deny issuance/renewal of passport of the petitioner. However, as per the said Gazette Notification, if the petitioner wants to travel abroad, he has to obtain permission from the Court concerned, where the criminal proceedings are pending. 7 9. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held in several cases that where a charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the competent Court, the concerned party has to approach the said criminal Court and seek appropriate permission for issuance or renewal of a passport. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that C.C.No.483 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole is pending against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition at the admission stage itself, with the following direction. (i) The petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate application before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ or appropriate permission for issuance/renewal of Passport. (ii) On such application, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 11. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated: 28.09.2026 MP 8 124 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26710 OF 2026 Date: 28.09.2026 MP