APHC010315792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14763/2026 Between: 1. MATTAPARTHI CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O.SUBRAHMANYAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION,D.NO.8-17, BRAHMANA VEEDHI, GANGALAKURRU AGRAHARAM -533221, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA (ERSTWHILE EASTGODAVARI) DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SOUTH BLOCK), SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILL NEW DELHI-110004. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, MARRIPALEM VUDA LAYOUT, NAD POST NEAR PF OFFICE, BESIDE RYTHU BAZAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530009. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI-522238, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN PS. AMALAPURAM-533201, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA (ERSTWHILE EASTGODAVARI) DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TOWN PS. AMALAPURAM-533201, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA (ERSTWHILE EASTGODAVARI) 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 an appropriate Writ, order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare action of the 2nd Respondent in holding issuance of Renewal Passport to Petitioner pursuant to his application No.VS9076766132026 dated 27.04.2026 which was received On.04.05.2026, on the premise that cases inrelation to incidents of Konaseema Violence as reported in Cr.No. 138/2022 dated 24.05.2022 etc., of Town P.S. Amalapuram being pending against Petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and against Article.21 of Constitution of India and consequently to direct 2nd Respondent to issue Renewal of passport to Petitioner pursuant to his application No.VS9076766132026 dated 27.04.2026 which was received On.04.05.2026 and to 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 Petitioner‟s Passport application No.vsgoyezeei32026 dated:27.04.2026 which was received On.04.05.2026 and issue a renewed passport pending disposal of the above Writ Petition subject to it‟s out come and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D V V S S N H BHUJANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri D.V.V.S.S.N.H.Bhujanga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1; learned standing counsel for Central Government, for respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondents 3 to 5. 2. The petitioner made an application vide File No.VS9076766132026 dated 27.04.2026 before respondent No.2 for the reissuance/renewal of a passport. Respondent No.2, having received the application, did not process the same due to the petitioner‟s involvement in crime No.138 of 2022 of the Town Police Station, Amalapuram. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of a criminal case does not impede the reissuance of a passport. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the Police have not filed any final report before the jurisdictional Court. 5. Thus, as seen from the pleadings and instructions, there is no dispute regarding the pendency of the aforementioned crime against the petitioner. However, the jurisdictional court has not taken cognisance. 6. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the issue involved in W.A.No.383 of 2024. The Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 29.10.2024, considered the aspect of cognisance by the Court in a criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows: “16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, 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. 17. Therefore, we would have 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.” 7. Unless the guilt is proved, an accused is presumed to be innocent and mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for renewing the passport, and the right to travel abroad is a personal liberty of a person. 8. Section 6 of the Passport Act 1967 (for short „the Act‟) 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; --- 9. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi1 held that 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. The Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another2; and Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India (UOI) and others3, held that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty. 11. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing respondent No.2 to consider the aforementioned application made by the petitioner for issuance of a passport, strictly as per the provisions of the Act and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980, without reference to the aforementioned crime number as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the urgency pleaded by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 04.06.2026 IKN 1 (2013) 15 SCC 570 2 AIR 1978 SC 597 3 (2019) Supreme (SC) 1516 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14763 of 2026 Date: 04.06.2026 IKN