APHC010234542026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 12165/2026 Between: 1. SAMBASIVA RAO MADALA, SAMBASIVA RAO MADALA, S/O. RAMARAO MADALA, AGED. 62, R/O. D.NO.40-6-273, 3RD LANE, SITARAM NAGAR, GUNTUR. 522001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 110001 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. 110001 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVERNORPET, M.G ROAD, VIJAYAWADA.520002 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WOMEN POLICE STATION, GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522501 ...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 that this Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not issuing the passport to the petitioner pursuant to application number VJ2066682346226 dated 15-4-2026 on the ground of pendency of crime no. 107/2019 on the file of Women P.S, Guntur Urban District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Passport Act and its Rules as well as in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to forthwith process the petitioners application vide application number VJ2066682346226 dated 15-4-2026 and accordingly issue fresh passport to the petitioner for a period of 10 years and to pass 2 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 to issue fresh passport to the petitioner vide application number VJ2066682346226 dated 15-4- 2026 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. BACHINA HANUMANTHA RAO (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.12165 of 2026 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue any writ, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not issuing the passport to the petitioner pursuant to application number VJ2066682346226 dated 15-4-2026 on the ground of pendency of crime no.107/2019 on the file of Women P.S, Guntur Urban District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Passport Act and its Rules as well as in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to forthwith process the petitioner’s application vide application number VJ2066682346226 dated 15-4-2026 and accordingly issue fresh passport to the petitioner for a period of 10 years and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 3. Sri B.Hanumatha Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, furnished proceedings dated 06.05.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent and submitted that a letter had been issued to the petitioner, vide SCN/1054639415/26, dated 18.04.2026, requesting to submit explanation regarding pendency of criminal case. However, there is no explanation from the petitioner. As such, the respondents are unable to process the petitioner’s passport application. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024 dated 29.10.2024, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, following the judgment rendered in Bhushan Kumar and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another1, held that having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before the Magistrate, 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. Therefore, there is 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. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to issue passport in favour of the appellant therein. 5. As seen from the judgment, it is evident that unless the Court takes cognizance and the proceedings are pending before a criminal Court, the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967are not applicable. 1 (2012) 5 SCC 424 5 6. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the present Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondents to process the petitioner’s passport application as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. However, the respondents are at liberty to take any other grounds for refusal, except the grounds raised in the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 06.05.2026 KBN 6 141 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No.12165 of 2026 06.05.2026 KKBBNN