APHC010609572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 31544/2025 Between: 1. DANGETI VEERA VENKATA SATYA PRASAD, S/O. D NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.9-439, MURALIDHAR NAGAR, RAMANAYYA PETA, KAKINDA, KAKINDA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFIRS, CENTRAL SECRETARIATE NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PASS PORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASS PORT OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 order direction more particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS declare the action of the Respondents in not renewal of the Pass Port reference No.25- 1065034772 dated 05-11-2025 for a period of 10 Years as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provision of Pass Port Act and consequently direct the Respondent Authorities for renewal of Pass Port reference No.25-1065034772 dated 05-11-2025 and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Respondent SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 2 Authorities renew the Pass Port reference No.25-1065034772 dated 05-11-2025 as per the law pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 implead the Proposed Respondents as Respondents 3 in W.P.No.31544 of 2025 as well as I.A.No.1 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BACHINA HANUMANTHA RAO (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 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 respondents in not renewing the Passport vide reference No.25- 1065034772, dated 05.11.2025 for a period of 10 years, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and consequently, direct the respondent authorities to renew the petitioner’s passport and pass such other order or orders …= 2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that the Writ Petitioner made an application, vide Reference No.23-1013477129 on 14.11.2023, before 2nd respondent for issuance of Passport and paid an amount of Rs.1,500/- towards fees and after due verification of original documents by the respondent authority on 14.11.2023, no steps were taken for issuance of passport, for the reason that a case in Crime No.55 of 2013 of Sarpavaram Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 471, 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity >IPC?); that originally, name of petitioner was not included in the FIR, but during the course of investigation, the petitioner was included as accused No.13. SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 4 (b) Aggrieved of the said act of respondent authorities, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4237 of 2024 before this Court and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 16.02.2024 directing the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned; that challenging the correctness of the Order, dated 16.02.2024, the petitioner preferred appeal vide Writ Appeal No.383 of 2024; that a Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Appeal vide Judgment, dated 29.10.2024 directing the respondent authorities to issue the passport in favour of petitioner without any further delay. Pursuant to the Judgment, dated 29.10.2024, 2nd respondent issued passport on 26.12.2024 in favour of petitioner for a period of one (01) year i.e., from 26.12.2024 to 25.12.2025; that as validity of the passport is going to be expired, the petitioner made application for renewal vide Reference No.25-1065034772, dated 05.11.2025, and as per the Passports Act, 1967, the prescribed period of issuance of passport is for 10 years, but the respondent authorities renewed the passport only for one year on the ground that criminal case is pending; that the daughter of petitioner is residing abroad and for obtaining VISA, one year renewal of passport is not sufficient. Hence, the Writ Petition. SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 5 3. During arguments, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the Writ Petition affidavit and it is further contended that already a Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 29.10.2024 in Writ Appeal No.383 of 2024 held that Court of the Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada has not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, therefore, since there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of proceedings pending before a criminal Court. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that at the time when Writ Appeal No.383 of 2024 was pending before a Division Bench of this Court, the case in Crime No.55 of 2013 of Sarpavaram Police Station was not taken cognizance, but, subsequently, cognizance was taken and pending for trial. Therefore, as per the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Appeal, since the cognizance was taken on file, the petitioner is entitled to get renewal of his passport only for one year. 5. Perused the entire material available on record. SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 6 6. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that Writ Petitioner, who is aged about 60 years, is arrayed as accused No.13 in the said crime. Cognizance is said to have been taken by the learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, according to the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Indisputably, none of the counsel stated the number of the criminal case said to have pending on the file of the aforesaid Jurisdictional Court. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the Petitioner?s daughter is residing abroad and for obtaining VISA, renewal of passport for one year is not sufficient. But, because of pendency of criminal case in Crime No.55 of 2013 of Sarpavaram Police Station, the respondent authorities are renewing the passport of the petitioner only for one year. 8. Pursuant to Passport Renewal application vide ARN: 25-1065034772 made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities was said to have renewed the passport for one year on the pretext that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner on the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada. If at all the case is pending on the file of the Jurisdictional Court, the petitioner is required to produce orders SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 7 (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. 9. It is the specific contention of petitioner that the petitioner was falsely implicated as accused No.13 in the said case and that the petitioner is always available and would not flee away from justice. It is the specific case of the petitioner that pendency of criminal case against the petitioner should not lead to denial of passport facilities and further that petitioner?s passport has to be renewed for a period of ten years. 10. 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 SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 8 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. 11. 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. 1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572. SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 9 12. 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 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.= 2 1978 (1) SCC 248. SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 10 13. 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. 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 3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP). SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 11 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. 14. A perusal of the contents of the Writ affidavit, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.13 in Crime No.55 of 2013 of Sarpavaram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 and 120B read with 34 IPC. Even though, the crime is pertaining to the year 2013, none of the counsel could SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 12 furnish the present status of the said crime as to whether cognizance was taken by the Jurisdictional Court and if so, whether the petitioner was convicted or acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and present/appear before the Court as and when required without fail. 15. 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 passport shall be renewed with a validity of five (05) years, under SRK, J W.P.No.31544 of 2025 13 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 28th January, 2026. DNB