APHC010284282026 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: 14791/2026 Between: 1. DR. RAMESH BABU POTHINENI,, S/O. SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCU. CHIEF CARDIOLOGIST AND THE M.D., OF ASTER RAMESH HOSPITALS. R/O. D.NO.54-16-14, RAMESH HOSPITAL ROAD, 0PP. ITI COLLEGE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2. THE CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001. 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVERNORPET, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520002. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GOVERNORPET POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MACHAVARAM POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 GTK, J W.P.No.14791 of 2026 ...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 an order or a direction or a writ, more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent (Regional Passport Officer at Vijayawada) in not renewing the Petitioners passport vide File No. VJ2076714382026 vide Letter Ref. No. SCN/1054857932/26 dated 14-05-2026 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, opposed to the settled law laid down by this Honble Court, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent (Regional Passport Officer at Vijayawada) to renew/re-issue the applied passport of the Petitioner vide File No. VJ2076714382026 without insisting upon such prior permission / No Objection from the concerned criminal Court and 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 the Respondents, particularly the 3rd Respondent (Regional Passport Officer at Vijayawada), to reconsider and process the Petitioner’s application for renewal/re-issuance of passport pursuant to File No. VJ2076714382026 without insisting upon prior permission / No Objection from the concerned criminal Court, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: 3 GTK, J W.P.No.14791 of 2026 ORDER: Heard Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. The writ petition is moved by the petitioner for Writ of Mandamus being aggrieved for not renewing the petitioner’s passport by respondents vide File No.VJ2076714382026 dated 14.05.2026, purportedly on the ground of pendency of Crime No.173 of 2020 of Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada, and C.C.No.2564 of 2024 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 3. The facts narrated in the affidavit are that the passport was initially issued on 22.06.2016 vide passport No.Z3747521, which is scheduled to expire on 21.06.2026. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application for renewal before the 3rd respondent vide File No.VJ2076714382026, dated 21.04.2026. The receipt of the said application dated 21.04.2026 was annexed to the petition as Ex.P.1. 4. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a letter dated 05.05.2026 stating that the police verification report revealed pendency of criminal cases, and alleged that the petitioner did not disclose the same in the online application. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a reply stating that the omission was inadvertent mistake and not intentional, and furnished of the said pending criminal cases along with their status and relevant material documents. 4 GTK, J W.P.No.14791 of 2026 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite submission of a detailed explanation and production of stay orders granted by this Court, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned communication dated 14.05.2026 stating that the petitioner to furnish permission to travel abroad from the concerned criminal Court in view of GSR.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993. 6. Learned counsel further states that, in respect of Crime No.173 of 2020 of Governorpet Police Station, this Court, in Criminal Petition No.3227 of 2020 granted interim protection to the petitioner, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also protected the petitioner’s liberty in SLA (Crl.).No.4201 of 2020. In respect of C.C.No.2564 of 2024, this Court, in Criminal Petition No.7788 of 2024, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.2564 of 2024 on the file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, by order dated 06.11.2024. 7. In the affidavit, it is averred that the petitioner is a qualified and registered medical practitioner possessing the qualifications of MD, DM and ESCAI. The petitioner established Citi Cardiac Centre in the year 1988 at Vijayawada, and thereafter, the said institution expanded and evolved into the present chain of multi-speciality Ramesh Hospitals at different places. It is also averred that the petitioner received an invitation in connection with Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Annual Scientific Meeting (SCCT 2026), proposed to be held in United States of America in July, 2026, and that non-renewal of passport would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s 5 GTK, J W.P.No.14791 of 2026 professional obligations, international academic participation, and medical engagements. 7. Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, deals with the refusal of passports, travel documents, etc. Section 6(2)(f), which 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 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; 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 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.14791 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. 10. 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." 11. 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." 12. 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.14791 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." 13. 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. 14. 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.14791 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: 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. 15. 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. 16. 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.14791 of 2026 17. Resultantly, in view of the legion of judicial pronouncements, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, particularly respondent No.3, to renew the passport of the petitioner (Old passport No.Z3747521), pursuant to the application made by the petitioner vide File No.VJ2076714382026, dated 21.04.2026, 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