APHC010064512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 3857/2026 Between: 1. SMT. M. KOUSALYA, W/O MIDDE MADHAVA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC HOMEMAKER, R/O H. NO. 1- 128, POST OFFICE ROAD, MAKKINAVARIGUDEM VILLAGE, T. NARSAPURAM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534456 ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011. 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH- 530003 3. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, NEAR P. F. OFFICE, BESIDE RYTHU BAZAR, MARRIPALEM VUDA LAY OUT, NAD POST, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP-530003. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, T. NARSAPURAM POLICE STATION, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534467. ...RESPONDENT(S): SRK, J WP No.3857 of 2026 2 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in not considering and disposing of my passport application bearing File No. VSB066257015526 for issuance of a fresh/new passport and having kept my aforesaid application for fresh/new passport on hold without deciding the same, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and provisions of Passports Act, 1967 and rules framed thereunder and consequently direct respondent No.3 to issue Petitioners passport filed under File No VSB066257015526 for fresh/new passport thereof and pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to issue Petitioner’s passport filed under File No: VSB066257015526 for fresh/new passport thereof, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. PELLETI RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) SRK, J WP No.3857 of 2026 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition has been filed questioning the action of 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioner’s application, vide File No. VSB066257015526 dated 19.01.2026, and in not issuing a passport to her. 2. Case of the petitioner is that, she made an online application before the respondent authorities, bearing File No. VSB066257015526 dated 19.01.2026, for issuance of Passport. As there was no response from 3rd respondent with regard to her passport application and her application status was showing “police verification report is not clear”, she was constrained to approach the office of 3rd respondent and furnish details regarding the Criminal Case pending against her i.e., Crime No.308 of 2020 of T.Narsapuram Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 353 IPC, wherein a charge sheet was filed and the same is taken on file as C.C.No.215 of 2022 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi. Petitioner stated that 3rd respondent is not issuing passport on the ground of pendency of Criminal Case against the petitioner. Hence, she filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that a Criminal Case is pending against the petitioner vide C.C.No.215 of 2022 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi. SRK, J WP No.3857 of 2026 4 4. 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 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 WP No.3857 of 2026 5 5. 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. 6. 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 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 1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572. 2 1978 (1) SCC 248. SRK, J WP No.3857 of 2026 6 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.” 7. 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 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. 3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP). SRK, J WP No.3857 of 2026 7 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 period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court. SRK, J WP No.3857 of 2026 8 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for Writ Petitioner that the daughter of Writ Petitioner is 7 months pregnant and is expected to deliver in the month of April, 2026 as per the medical advice. She is presently residing abroad and requires the presence of petitioner during the time of delivery and post-natal period, as she needs support and care. But, because of pendency of criminal case in Calendar Case No.215 of 2022, the application made by the Writ Petitioner for issuance of passport was rejected by the respondents. 9. The Central Government has also issued GSR 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). 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of Passport, without raising any objection relating to the pendency of criminal case in C.C.No.215 of 2022 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi. 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). 11. However, this order shall not preclude 5th respondent- Station House Officer, T.Narsapuram Police Station, Eluru District from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner, for conduct of the investigation of the aforesaid case for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. SRK, J WP No.3857 of 2026 9 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:17.02.2026 sj SRK, J WP No.3857 of 2026 10 219 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.3857 of 2026 Date:17.02.2026 sj