APHC010016162026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 1778/2026 Between: 1. SWATHI KRISHNA ALURI, W/O. ANIL KUMAR KAKANI OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D NO 1-017-3 MAIN ROAD.GOPINENIPALEM, VATSAVAI MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT - 521190. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,110001. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO. 27-37-158, GOVERNORPET,MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA,520001. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, C.I.D POLICE STATION, MANGALALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,522503. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YARKAREDDY SUSHMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition has been filed questioning the action of the respondent authorities in not processing the petitioner’s passport application (File No.VJ2075829686825) on the ground of pendency of Crime No.45 of 2022 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, against her, and consequently to direct SRK, J WP No.1778 of 2026 2 respondent No.2 to process her passport application as expeditiously as possible. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she applied for the issuance of a passport and submitted an application under File No. VJ2075829686825 before the Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada. On 11.12.2025, the petitioner received a letter from respondent No. 2 stating that the police verification report revealed the pendency of criminal proceedings against her in Crime No. 45 of 2022 and calling upon her to submit an explanation as to why the pendency of the said criminal case was not disclosed in the passport application, within a period of 30 days from the date of the said letter. Due to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, the passport application of the petitioner has been kept pending by the respondent authorities, and no passport has been issued to the petitioner till date. 3. Heard Ms.Sushma Yarkareddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non- disclosure of the criminal case pending against her was not intentional. It occurred only due to her limited understanding of SRK, J WP No.1778 of 2026 3 the online application process, as a result of which the same could not be disclosed in the application. 5. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.383 of 2024, dated 29.10.2024, wherein it was observed as follows: “Reliance placed by the learned single Judge on the judgment rendered in the case of Khader Vali Shaik(supra) was also inapt. Furthermore, the judgment referred to in the case of Parchuri Ashok Babu (supra) in fact, supported and buttressed the case of the petitioner that Section 6(2)(f) would apply only when there was a proceeding pending before the criminal Court. 19. Be that as it may, we allow the present writ appeal, set aside the judgment and order impugned dated 16.02.2024 and direct the respondents to issue the passport in favour of the appellant without any further delay. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. The issue and renewal of passports is regulated by the Passports Act, 1967. Section 6(2), extracted below, is relevant for this purpose. (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., SRK, J WP No.1778 of 2026 4 (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., (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court of India., (g) that a 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. The grounds on which, the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is being refused could at best fall within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act,1967. This provision has SRK, J WP No.1778 of 2026 5 been considered in various cases and the ambit of this provision is fairly settled. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 27.09.2021 in Crl.A.No.1342 of 2017 in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, after considering Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, held that the passport authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal case and directed the passport authority to renew the passport. 8. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras in the order dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 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 be depended on no objection being given by the concerned Court. 9. The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f). SRK, J WP No.1778 of 2026 6 10. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, 1967, would arise only when there is a pending proceeding before the Criminal Court after cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court. 11. In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, and since the case registered against the petitioner is only at the crime stage, respondent No.2 is directed to process the petitioner’s application forthwith, without raising any objection relating to the pendency of Crime No.45 of 2022 of C.I.D. police Station, Mangalagiri. It is further observed that if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, it is needless to mention that she has to resort in filing an application before appropriate Court seeking No-objection Certificate (NOC). 12. However, this order shall not preclude 3rd respondent- Station House Officer, C.I.D. Police Station, Mangalagiri from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner, for conduct of the investigation of the aforesaid crime for any other purposes. 13. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. SRK, J WP No.1778 of 2026 7 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:22.01.2026 Asr SRK, J WP No.1778 of 2026 8 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.1778 of 2026 Date:22.01.2026 Asr