APHC010499742026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27360 OF 2026 Between: 1. VEERA ADHI VINAY KUMAR DULAM, s/o Nageswara Rao Dulam, Aged about 47 years. Occ Business, Rio D No. 8 Kalkaluru, Eluru District 521333, Andhra Pradesh 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, Department of External Affairs Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110004 2. The Passport Authority of India, Rep. by its Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, PSP Division, Room No 8, Patia Marg. New Delhi-110001 3. The Regional Passport Office, Venkateswara Theatre Complex, MG Road. Opp. Radio Station Road, Vijayawada 520610 4. The Station House Officer, Kaikaluru Town Police Station Kaikaluru, Eluru District 521333 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) THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27360 OF 2026 1. VEERA ADHI VINAY KUMAR DULAM, s/o Nageswara Rao Dulam, Aged about 47 years. Occ Business, Rio D No. 8-104, Near Santha Market, Kalkaluru, Eluru District 521333, Andhra Pradesh AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, Department of External Affairs Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Central 110004 2. The Passport Authority of India, Rep. by its Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, PSP Division, Room No 8, Patia 110001 3. The Regional Passport Office, Venkateswara Theatre Complex, MG Road. Opp. Radio Station Road, Vijayawada 520610 4. The Station House Officer, Kaikaluru Town Police Station Kaikaluru, Eluru . 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. VEERA ADHI VINAY KUMAR DULAM, s/o Nageswara Rao Dulam, Aged 104, Near Santha Market, ...Petitioner 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, Department of External Affairs, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Central 2. The Passport Authority of India, Rep. by its Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, PSP Division, Room No 8, Patiala House, Tilak 3. The Regional Passport Office, Venkateswara Theatre Complex, MG Road. 4. The Station House Officer, Kaikaluru Town Police Station Kaikaluru, Eluru ...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, writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No. 3 in keeping my passport application bearing File No. V12074927111726 on hold in view of pendency of Crime No. 154/2024 before Kaikaluru Town P.S. West Godavari District is illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the Respondents to issue my passport without reference to Crime No. 154 of 2024 of Kaikaluru Town Police Station, West Godavari District 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 stay the operation of order passed by the 4th respondent vide Letter No. /A, dated 3.9.2026 in so far as petitioners extents i.e, an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents in Sy No. 22-21B (LPM No. 209) and an extent of Ac. 0.25 cents in Sy No. 22-21 situated at Chakipalli Revenue Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District pending disposal of the above WP in the interest of justice, to pass necessary order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: B NANCHARAIAH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: 3 The Court made the following order: Non-consideration of the petitioner’s passport application bearing File No.V12074927111726 in view of pendency of Crime No.154 of 2024 before Kaikaluru Town Police Station, West Godavari District is his grievance. 2. Heard Sri Basu Nancharaiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, contended that the petitioner submitted an online application dated 17.08.2026 before respondent No.3, however upon verification, respondent No.3 has kept the application ‘on hold’ solely on account of the pending investigation in Crime No.154 of 2024 and has directed the petitioner to secure permission or a ‘NO Objection Certificate’ from the Criminal Court. He further submitted that the petitioner approached the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kaikaluru by filing a petition under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 seeking permission. However, the learned Magistrate returned the petition on the ground that since the charge sheet has not been filed and cognizance has not been taken, criminal proceedings do not formally pending before the Court and therefore an NOC under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act cannot be entertained at this stage. He further contended that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his 4 right to get his passport due to pendency of criminal case. Hence, prayed to allow the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions of the Station House Officer, Kaikaluru Town Police Station, contended that charge sheet against the petitioner was submitted through e-prosecution on 27.08.2026 and after getting approval, the physical charge sheet was filed in the AJFCM Court, Kaikaluru on 18.09.2026 vide CF No.200 of 2026. 5. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, which outlines the legal grounds upon which the passport authority must or may refuse to issue a passport, travel document, or make an endorsement for visiting foreign countries, envisages that: Section 6(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: - (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India., (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India., (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; 5 (f) that that proceedings a in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g) warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. 6. Section 6(2) (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trail in a criminal court. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, has been considered on several occasions by the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would depend on no objection being given by the concerned court. 7. Further, in Vagala Venkata Siva Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that, as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant in India. 6 8. In view of the observations held above, the passport authorities cannot withhold passport on the mere ground of registration of crime. In the instant case, the submissions made by both the learned counsel would indicate that charge sheet was filed, but the same was not taken cognizance of by the concerned Court, as such they cannot deny passport. 9. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner filed for issuance of his passport, if it meets all the necessary requirements, other than the objection regarding pendency of crime. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 24.09.2026 MP 7 134 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION No.27360 of 2026 Dated : 24.09.2026 MP