APHC010006322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 571/2026 Between: 1. BALABHADRA VENKATA RAJU, S/O SURYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10-7-5, RANGREEJU PETA, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PARLIAMENT SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP BY ITS CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER PSP DIVISION MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO 8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001. 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM NEAR PF OFFICE, BESIDE RYTHU BAZAR, MARRIPALEM , VUDA LAYOUT, NAD POST, N.H-5 MAIN ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM -530009. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOVVUR TOWN P.S. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent withholding/refusing to renew/re-issue the in petitioner's passport pursuant to Application No.24-1015733351, dated 14-02-2025, SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 2 solely the ground of pendency of Cr.No.97 of 2024 of Kowur Town Police on Station under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gambling now pending as C.C.No.22 of 2024 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kowur, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of the Provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, contrary to the principles of natural justice violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to forthwith renew and re issue the petitioner's passport to enable the petitioner to travel abroad for medical treatment, 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 to direct the Respondents No.3 to consider the petitioner‟s application vide No.24-1015733351, dated 14-02-2025 for renewal of passport forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 3 O R D E R: This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in withholding/refusing to renew/reissue the petitioner’s passport pursuant to Application No.24-1015733351, dated 14.02.2025, solely on the ground of pendency of Crime No.97 of 2024 of Kovvur Town Police Station under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gambling Act, now pending as Calendar Case No.22 of 2024 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondent No.3 to forthwith renew and reissue the petitioner’s passport to enable the petitioner to travel abroad for medical treatment and pass such other order or orders …” 2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that the Writ Petitioner obtained Passport bearing No.N5377533 and it is valid from 21.12.2015 to 20.12.2025; that the Writ Petitioner is a senior citizen, and he intends to take medical treatment and follow up in the United States of America; that as the Writ Petitioner‟s passport expired on 20.12.2025, he made an online application on 14.02.2025 vide Application No.ARN: 24-1015733351 for renewal/reissue passport with 3rd respondent authority along with all requisite documents, but 3rd SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 4 respondent sent a letter dated 11.06.2025 to the Writ Petitioner stating that a case in Crime No.97 of 2024 of Kovvur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (for brevity „the Act‟) was registered against him and he was arrayed as accused No.10 and the said case is taken on file as Calendar Case No.22 of 2024 pending on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur for trial. The said criminal case does not involve any allegation of violence, fraud, moral turpitude, national security, public order or international ramifications; that the Writ Petitioner was arrayed as accused No.10 without attribution of any specific overt act and merely on suspicion. (b) The Writ Petitioner is aged about 71 years, suffering from multiple age-related ailments and serious health complications and he requires continuous medical treatment and follow-up in the United States of America; that in view the denial of passport renewal, the Writ Petitioner could not take treatment in USA which has directly and adversely affected the health of Writ Petitioner; that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 5 treated as an automatic disqualification for renewal or reissuance of a Passport. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. During arguments, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the Writ Petition affidavit. 4. Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would contend that the Writ Petitioner suppressed the fact of registration of FIR in Crime No.97 of 2024 of Kovvur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and it was taken on file as Calendar Case No.22 of 2024 pending on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, for trial. The Writ Petitioner was called for, to furnish proper explanation regarding the circumstances under which he had suppressed the material information in the application, but the Writ Petitioner, without furnishing his explanation, filed the present Writ Petition. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.4/Home reiterated the contention of learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and further SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 6 contended that if the passport of the Writ Petitioner is renewed, there is every likelihood of Writ Petitioner fleeing away from case trial. 6. Perused the entire material available on record. 7. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that Writ Petitioner, who is aged about 71 years, is arrayed as accused No.10 in Calendar Case No.22 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner is suffering from multiple age related and serious health complications and he intends to take medical treatment and follow up in the United States of America frequently. But, because of pendency of criminal case in Calendar Case No.22 of 2024, the application made by the Writ Petitioner for renewing his passport was rejected by the respondents. 9. Pursuant to Passport Renewal application vide ARN: 24-1015733351 (VS1077412635725) made by the Writ Petitioner, the Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam vide Letter Ref.No: SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 7 SCN/1049321156/25, reported that Writ Petitioner is involved in Calendar Case No.22 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur and he was directed to submit case clearance orders/disposal orders/quash orders within 30 days, and if the case is pending in the Court, the Writ Petitioner is required to produce orders (NOC) from the Court concerned permitting him to travel abroad as per the provisions of Gazette Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 along with concerned Undertaking for taking further necessary action on the application made by Writ Petitioner. 10. It is the specific contention of Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner was falsely implicated as accused No.10 in the said case and that the Writ Petitioner is always available and would not flee away from justice. It is the specific case of the Writ Petitioner that pendency of criminal case against the Writ Petitioner should not lead to denial of passport facilities and further that Writ Petitioner‟s passport has to be renewed for a period of ten years. 11. Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 deals with application for obtaining a passport. Section 6 thereof deals with refusal of a passport. Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 8 contemplates that the passport issuing authority shall be bound to reject the application for issuance of a passport, if criminal proceedings are pending in any Court in India. The Government of India issued a Notification vide GSR No.570E, dated 25.08.1993. GSR 570 (E) reads as follows: “In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (Act 15 of 1967) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.GSR 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 sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, viz:- …” A plain reading of the aforesaid Notification would go to show that if any citizen of India intends to travel abroad when a criminal case is pending as against him before a criminal court in India, he has to produce orders from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India exempting from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 9 12. SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 9 12. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. 13. Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India2 held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. The relevant portion of the paragraph No.5 is extracted as under: “Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of 1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572. 2 1978 (1) SCC 248. SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 10 some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law. Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.” 14. This Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and another3 at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6, observed as under: “4. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction I was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport. 5. This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not 3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP). SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 11 less than two years. The use of the conjunction and makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport. 6. The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred to in the counter-affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 12 period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court. 15. The Writ Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.10 in the aforesaid Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner would abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and present/ appear before the Court as and when required without fail. Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said right is a Fundamental Right and a citizen of the country cannot be deprived of his personal liberty or of his right to travel abroad. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and duly considering the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court in various Judgments discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court exempts the petitioner from the operation of provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 in terms of the Notification in G.S.R.No.570(E) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 25.08.1993 and directs the authority concerned to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of passport to him. The SRK, J W.P.No.571 of 2026 13 passport shall be renewed with a validity of ten (10) years, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 21st January, 2026. DNB