APHC010005522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 801/2026 Between: 1. ALLURI NARAYANA RAJU, S/O ALLURI KRISHNAM RAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O 1-191/1, BHUDEVI THOTA, EAST CANAL ROAD, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. -110011 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM.-530009 ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly in the nature of a 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in failing to consider and process the renewal application of the Petitioner herein for Passport bearing No. M1497412 vide File No. VS4076630964324 dated 07.06.2024, despite full disclosure of pending criminal cases and despite there being no statutory bar, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and consequently 2 JS,J W.P.No.801/2026 direct the Respondent No.2 to forthwith consider, process and renew the passport bearing No. Ml497412 of the Petitioner herein and 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 pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to forthwith process and renew the Application bearing File.No.VS4076630964324 Dt.07.06.2024 of the Petitioner herein and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 JS,J W.P.No.801/2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner made an application vide File No.VS4076630964324, dated 07.06.2024, seeking to issue fresh passport to the petitioner. Pursuant to his application, the respondent authorities have not processed his application due to the submission of an adverse verification report by the Police i.e., his involvement in criminal trial vide C.C.No.414 of 2020 on the file of the VIII ACMM Court, Gajuwaka and another DVC case bearing No.37 of 2020 on the file of the 1st ACMM Court, Visakhapatnam. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of criminal case is not a bar to issue passport to the petitioner and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order, dated 26.09.2024, passed by this Court in W.P. No.18328 of 2024. 4. At the hearing, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.414 of 2020 on the file of the VIII ACMM Court, Gajuwaka and another DVC case bearing Nos.37 of 2020 on the file of the 1st ACMM Court, Visakhapatnam. Since the competent criminal Court has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.383 of 2024, dated 29.10.2024, has considered the said aspect of cognizance by the Court in a criminal case vis-à-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows: “16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, 4 JS,J W.P.No.801/2026 having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. 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 no question of „proceedings pending before a criminal Court‟, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.” 6. In the case on hand, the Criminal Court has taken cognizance and issued summons. Once the criminal Court takes cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Court and make an appropriate application. 7. Apart from the above discussion, in the case on hand, the petitioner without approaching the concerned jurisdictional Court, has straightaway approached this Court. The petitioner was expected to submit his explanation. This Court does not find, in the facts of this case, infringement of right, if any, of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Court concerned. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional Court and make an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the learned jurisdictional Court concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Passports Act and the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. 5 JS,J W.P.No.801/2026 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 08.01.2026 RSD 6 JS,J W.P.No.801/2026 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 801/2026 Dated: 08.01.2026 RSD