APHC010281632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 14656/2026 Between: 1. NAASARA PEDDAIAH, S/O. VENKATESWARLU , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O P.NO.1-1-219, PAMULA VEERANNA STREET, ALLAGADDA, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI, INDIA. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, GJ3M PLUS X9M, VENKATESWARA THEATRE COMPLEX, MG RD, OPP. RADIO STATION, VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH 520610. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI GUNTUR 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 topleased to issue a writ, order, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of respondent no.2 in issuing the Proceedings vide letter Ref.No.SCN/1054709267/26 dated 23-04- 2026 thereby refusing to renew the passport to the petitioner pursuant to his 2 Tatkaal Application No.26-1057118645 dated 18- 04-2026 on the ground of pending Case against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and against Article 14 and 21 of our Indian Constitution and consequently to direct respondent no.2 to renew the passport for the petitioner for the period of 10 years pursuant to his Tatkaal Application No.26-1057118645 dated 18-04-2026 and to pass 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 pleased to direct Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's Tatkaal Application No.26-1057118645 dated 18-04- 2026 for Renewal of passport in view of explanation dated 04-05- 2026 submitted by the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 14656/2026 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner moved this Court for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings dated 23.04.2026, vide Letter Ref.No.SCN/1054709267/26, refusing to renew the passport of the petitioner in pursuant to the application made through tatkal vide No.26- 1057118645 dated 18.04.2026 on the ground of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The contentions put forward by the petitioner in the affidavit are that he was earlier issued passport on 30.01.2017, vide passport No.P7382260, for a period of 10 years, which is now to be expired on 29.01.2027 and in that pursuit, for extension, an application was made by the petitioner through tatkal, vide application No.26-1057118645. After the process conducted by the respondents, a show cause notice dated 23.04.2026 was issued by the 2nd respondent, calling for an explanation to furnish proof of clearance of case and clarify in-person at the Passport Office and the required documents were elicited in the show cause notice, providing 30 days from the date of receipt. 4 4. In tune to the said show cause notice, the petitioner on 04.05.2026 approached the 2nd respondent, informing that the charge sheet was filed in respect of Crime No.350 of 2024 and till date no cognizance is taken by the Magistrate and more so, the charge sheet submitted was returned and till date it is not resubmitted by the concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance so far and in similar circumstances, keeping in view of ingredients of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, this Court in similar circumstances in W.P.No.13133 of 2025 in a case of Ravi Ramesh v. Union of India 1 by Order dated 09.05.2025, was pleased to hold that when jurisdictional Court has not taken any cognizance and mere pendency of crime is not a bar for renewing/re-issuing the passport. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would impress the Court that the said principle is no more res integra and the said principal is still resonating, yet the 2nd respondent without any application of mind, in a mechanical manner rejected the petitioner’s application, thereby infringing Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which enables a Right to Travel to every citizen with certain restrictions and the very action is contrary to Section 6(2)(f) of the Act. Section 6(2)(f) of the Act is relevant is extracted hereunder: “6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc. --- (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 1 2015 Live Law AP 88 5 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: - --- (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; 7. Learned counsel would further submit that in furtherance to the said principle, mere pendency of the criminal case is not sufficient to deny the renewal of a passport, but the fact of cognizance being taken by the competent Magistrate needs to be taken into consideration and strictly adhered to. 8. In continuation of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam and others2 wherein it is held that the Right to Travel is indeed a fundamental right and the same cannot be arbitrarily and illegally denied by the State and that no person can be deprived of his Right to Travel except according to procedure established by law. 9. In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi3, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.13 observed as follows: "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." 10. In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others4, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.5 observed as follows: 2 AIR 1967 SC 1836 3 2013(15) SCC 570 6 "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." 11. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India5, the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 Para No.5 is extracted as under: "5. 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 Passport may be issued or refused or canceled 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." 12. This Court in similar circumstances in W.P.No.13133 of 2025 in a case of Ravi Ramesh v. Union of India6 by Order dated 09.05.2025, was pleased to held that in the case at hand the, jurisdictional Court has not taken any cognizance and mere pendency of crime is not a bar for renewing/re-issuing the passport. 4 MANU/SC/0826/2019 5 1978 (1) SCC 248 6 2015 Live Law AP 88 7 13. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vagala Venkata Siva Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh on 2 February, 2021; Criminal Revision Case Nos.475 and 478 of 2020, this Court vide para No.14 has observed that: Para 14: 14. As per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant in India. A bare reading of the Passport Act, 1967 reveals that there is no absolute bar for Renewal of passport. As per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967 when the passport authority refuses to grant passport, the Court while exercising its discretion has to look at the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a reason to refuse to grant passport. 14. In Akhilesh v. State of Kerala and Others7 it was held that the Court where the case is presently pending has to decide whether the applicant is entitled to get a passport as well as the period for which he is entitled to hold the passport and the Court has also to keep in mind the fact that pendency of a criminal case shall not stand in the way or cause hindrance to decide the future of an applicant. 15. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in a similar occasion, this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1392 & 2896 of 2023 & 38869 of 2022 has observed that: 105. In the result, the Court passes the following order, disposing of all the writ petitions in the following terms: (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the 7 (2021 (2) KHC 752) 8 pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected. (b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial. (c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993. (d) If the petitioner approaches the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending trial, for an order, seeking No Objection Certificate / Permission to depart from India or to continue to his departing from India, with respect to those petitioners, who already departed under the passport, the renewal of which is requested, their applications would be considered by the concerned Court, as per law, taking into account the relevant RNT, J WP Nos.1392 of 2023 & 2 ors. 52 facts and circumstances of their respective cases and appropriate orders shall be passed according to law. (e) The judgment in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, shall be considered in the correct perspective, as discussed in this judgment, by the concerned Court. (f) If there is an additional ground, under any other clause of Section 6 (2), i.e., other than clause (f), the same shall be considered independent of the directions issued in these writ petitions. (g) The petitioner of W.P.No.2896 of 2023 is granted liberty to approach the Court concerned afresh. 16. It is to be noted that in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI8, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while answering Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, has observed that pendency of criminal appeal is not an automatic bar for issuance of a passport, and that Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be balanced with the necessity of securing presence of the accused. 17. As could be seen from the impugned order of the respondent dated 23.04.2026, it prima facie appears to the Court that the rejection of renewal is 8 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549 = 2020 CriLJ (SC) 572 9 without any application of mind to the facts and to the legion of pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The law, which is no more res integra, holds that a mechanical rejection of renewal of the passport would be categorized as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to very facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the constitutional Courts are time and again frowning upon the authorities to duly issue orders by considering the instructions and the settled law. 18. Given to the fasciculus legal position, the impugned order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and a further direction is issued to the respondents to issue the renewed passport to the petitioner, in pursuant to Tatkal application No.26-1057118645 dated 18.04.2026, strictly adhering to the essential elements prescribed in Section 6(2)(f) of the Act and the law of the land, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of order. 19. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Dated 22.05.2026 KBN/KA 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 14656/2026 Dated .05.2026 KBN/KA