APHC010041442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2620 OF 2026 Between: Mandapati Ramesh ...PETITIONER AND Union of India and others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondents: 1.Mallampalli Srinivas, Central Government Counsel. 2. GP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of 2nd respondent in issuing Letter in Ref.No.SCN/1052846546, dated 18.12.2025, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and direct 3rd respondent to renew the Passport of the petitioner without insisting NOC from the Courts in respect of Crime No.246 of 2018 of Dachepalli Police Station and Crime No.176 of 2018 of Gurazala Town Police Station. SRK, J WP No.2620 of 2026 2 2. Case of the petitioner is that 3rd respondent issued a Passport bearing No.N7843353 to the petitioner on 31.03.2016 with a validity for a period of ten years. As the passport issued in favour of the petitioner was going to expire on 30.03.2026, he submitted an application dated 25.11.2025 before the Respondent Authorities seeking for renewal of the passport. Thereafter, as per the appointment fixed by Respondent No.3, the petitioner attended for enquiry and produced all the relevant documents for renewal of the passport. 3. While so, the petitioner received a letter dated 18.12.2025 from 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated that on police verification, it was found that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.246 of 2018 of Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 341, 143 read with 34 IPC (CC No.548 of 2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala) and called upon the petitioner to submit proper explanation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter dated 18.12.2025. 4. Petitioner states that the said letter was received by him on 23.12.2025, and as his sister-in-law passed away on 18.12.2025 and he has to perform her last rituals as head of family, he could not attend 3rd respondent office in time. He further states that his son, who is currently residing at the United States of America, is being engaged to one Ms. Divya on 15.03.2026, therefore his son booked flight tickets for his travel to Washington DC on 05.02.2026. SRK, J WP No.2620 of 2026 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two crimes were registered against the petitioner herein i.e. crime No.246 of 2018 of Dachepalli Police Station, Guntur District, was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 341, 143 read with 34 IPC, and pursuant to filing of charge sheet, taken on file vide CC No.548 of 2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala; another crime No.176 of 2018 of Gurazala Urban Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341 and 188 read with 149 IPC, and pursuant to filing of charge sheet, taken on file vide CC No.793 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Both the said cases were registered for the offences punishable below seven years. He further submits that action of Respondent No.3 in keeping the application submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal of passport referring to the crimes against the petitioner is highly illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. He further submits that the issue as to whether the renewal of Passport can be rejected referring to the pendency of criminal proceedings either at the stage of crime or after taking cognizance is no longer res integra as this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court concurrently held time and again that the renewal of the Passport cannot be withheld or rejected referring to the pendency of the criminal proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is the Fundamental Right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his wish as held in catena of SRK, J WP No.2620 of 2026 4 judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India1. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India and others2. In view of the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport. 8. On the other hand, Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel, submits that the petitioner intentionally did not mention about the pendency of criminal proceedings, which are within his own knowledge. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel and perused the material placed on record. 10. A learned single Judge of this Court in W.P No.30373 of 2022, dated 28.09.2022, observed as follows:- “9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras 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 1 1978 AIR 597 2 W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 SRK, J WP No.2620 of 2026 5 issuance or renewal of the passport would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court. 10. 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).” 11. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when there is a pending proceedings 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 Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others3, the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows: “6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under: "The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 7. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) 3 W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 SRK, J WP No.2620 of 2026 6 SCC online SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others at para 4 observed as under: "The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right." 12. In the light of the settled legal position and the purpose pleaded by the petitioner for visiting abroad and viewed the facts of the present case in the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court exempts the petitioner from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 in terms of the G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs and directs the authority concerned for renewal of passport to the petitioner, without reference to the aforesaid criminal cases pending against him for a period of ten years under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. 13. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. SRK, J WP No.2620 of 2026 7 14. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2026 Nsr SRK, J WP No.2620 of 2026 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.2620 of 2026 Date: 04.02.2026 Nsr