APHC010282292026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 14655/2026 Between: 1. GUTALA MAHABOOB BASHA, GUTALA MAHABOO BASHA, S/O. ABDUL SATTAR, AGE 42 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.13/958, SARAVAYAPALLI ROAD, KADAPA ROAD, VTC S.MYDUKUR, PO MYDUKUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SPECIAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, DOOR NO. 27- 37-158, STALIN CENTRAL, GOVERNORPET, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520002 ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DUTTALURU POLICE STATION, NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the Respondent/s in refusing / withholding / not processing the petitioners Application Reference No.26-1053689132 and Application Reference No.26-1053689132 dated 25.02.2026 for renewal / reissue of passport by referring to C.C.No.681 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, 2 GTK, J W.P.No.14655 of 2026 despite the said proceedings having been stopped under Section 258 Cr.P.C. by order dated 11.07.2011, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to Section 258 Cr.P.C., contrary to Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, contrary to G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to renew / reissue the passport of the petitioner forthwith, without reference to C.C.No.681 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri AND/OR 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 2nd respondent to consider and s process the petitioners application vide Application Reference No.26- 1053689132 and Application Reference No.26-1053689132 dated 25.02.2026 for renewal / reissue of passport without reference to C.C.No.681 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, or alternatively to issue passport to the petitioner subject to such reasonable conditions as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice AND/OR pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DHEERA KANISHKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: 3 GTK, J W.P.No.14655 of 2026 ORDER: Heard Sri Dheera Kanishka, 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 writ petition is moved by the petitioner for Writ of Mandamus being aggrieved for not renewing the petitioner’s passport by respondents pursuant to the Application Reference No.26-1053689132, dated 25.02.2026, purportedly on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.681 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri. 3. The facts narrated in the affidavit are that the passport was initially issued on 24.02.2016 vide passport No.N.7985881, which expired on 23.02.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for renewal before the 2nd respondent vide Application Reference No.26-1053689132, dated 25.02.2026. The receipt of the said application dated 25.02.2026 was annexed to the petition as Ex.P.1. The petitioner contends that he appeared before the authorities and submitted all the necessary papers. However, at the stage of processing the application, the authorities raised an objection with reference to the pendency of C.C.No.681 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri. 4. In the affidavit, it is averred that the proceedings in the said case had already been stopped by a judicial order dated 11.07.2011 passed under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., owing to complete prosecutorial inaction and 4 GTK, J W.P.No.14655 of 2026 non-execution of summons. Since the date of the said order, no effective proceedings whatsoever have taken place before the criminal Court, and there is no material on record to show that the petitioner is involved in the said criminal case pertaining to the alleged offences. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said criminal case has remained completely dormant for more than fifteen years, and there is no active trial, no recording of evidence, no live prosecution, no effective adjudicatory process, and no subsisting order passed by any criminal Court restraining the petitioner from holding or obtaining a passport. 6. Learned counsel would further states that the core issue arising in the present Writ Petition is whether a proceeding, which had already been stopped under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., and thereafter remained dormant for more than fifteen years, can still be treated as ‘pending criminal proceedings’ for the purpose of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. 7. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, this Court is of the opinion that it would be necessary to refer to Section 6(2) (f) of the Passport Act. “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 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: - 5 GTK, J W.P.No.14655 of 2026 --- (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; 8. It is to be noted that in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI1, 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. 9. The only embargo postulated in the said Section is that the cognizance needs to be taken by the competent Court and the said proceedings to be pending before the criminal Court. 10. In the present case, as could be seen, the learned Magistrate stopped the proceedings under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., since the non-execution of the NBW against A1 and summons against A2, who is the petitioner herein, had remained pending for more than two years, as reflected in the docket order dated 11.07.2011. It is trite and beyond any cavil of doubt that the law is settled and needs no further interpretation by the authorities. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549 = 2020 CriLJ (SC) 572 2 AIR 1967 SC 1836 6 GTK, J W.P.No.14655 of 2026 illegally denied by the State and that no person can be deprived of his Right to Travel except according to procedure established by law. 12. 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." 13. In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others4, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.5 observed as follows: "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." 14. 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: 3 2013(15) SCC 570 4 MANU/SC/0826/2019 5 1978 (1) SCC 248 7 GTK, J W.P.No.14655 of 2026 "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." 15. 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. 16. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vagala Venkata Siva Kumar v. The State of Andhra 6 2015 Live Law AP 88 8 GTK, J W.P.No.14655 of 2026 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. 17. 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. 18. In Venkata Rao Vara vs. Union of India and others8, this Court, while considering the scope of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993, held that passport renewal cannot be mechanically denied merely on account of criminal proceedings and that the applicant is entitled to renewal of passport in accordance with law. 7 (2021 (2) KHC 752) 8 W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 9 GTK, J W.P.No.14655 of 2026 19. Resultantly, in view of the legion of judicial pronouncements, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, particularly respondent No.2, to renew the passport of the petitioner (Old passport No.N. 7985881), as per application filed, vide application No.26-1053689132, dated 25.02.2026, strictly in accordance with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, keeping in view the law laid down by the Constitutional Courts, and to pass appropriate orders within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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: 28.05.2026 BMS