.APHC010686622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 35734/2025 Between: 1. VATTIKUTI SRINIVASARAO, C/O. CHOWDARAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, FLAT NO. 401, VATTIKUTI BOMMARILLU APARTMENT, MUNICIPAL OFFICE VYSHNAVI NAGAR 2ND LINE, PONNUR, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. 2. THE PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG,NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE - VIJAYAWADA, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVERNORPET, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.-520002 4. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PONNUR RURAL P.S., GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASU L Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 2 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition has been filed questioning the action of the respondent authorities in not renewing the petitioner’s Passport bearing No.N07522324 pursuant to his application dated 05.06.2025. 2. Case of the petitioner is that initially a Passport bearing No. N07522324 was issued in his favour on 08.07.2015, which was valid up to 07.07.2025. The petitioner herein suffered a hemorrhagic stroke on 18.08.2023 while he was in the USA and was immediately admitted to Good Samaritan Hospital, San Jose, where he received emergency medical treatment. Under the supervision of the doctor, he was categorically advised to undergo extended treatment for recovery and regaining functional independence, and the doctor issued a medical recommendation stating that continuation of treatment is essential for the petitioner’s health and survival. As the petitioner’s passport was going to expire on 07.07.2025, he made an online application bearing No. 25-1053387959, dated 04.06.2025, seeking renewal of the said passport. However, the application of the petitioner was not processed by the respondent authorities on the ground that criminal cases are pending against him, namely Criminal SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 3 Appeal No.120 of 2025 on the file of the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Bapatla; Crime No.56 of 2023 of Ponnur Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 IPC; and Lok Adalat Case No.05 of 2025 arising out of C.C.No.202 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur relates to Crime No.206 of 2021 of Ponnur Rural Police Station. The case arising out of Crime No.206 of 2021 has already been settled before the Lok Adalat. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of his application, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the case in Crime No.56 of 2023 of Ponnuru Rural Police Station is at the stage of investigation. 4. Perused the entire material available on record. 5. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that Writ Petitioner, who is aged about 60 years, is arrayed as accused No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.220 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Bapatla, relating to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner herein also involved in SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 4 Crime No.56 of 2023 of Ponnur Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner is suffering from severe hemorrhagic stroke and he intends to take medical treatment and follow up in the United States of America frequently. 7. It is the specific contention of Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner was falsely implicated as accused in the said cases and that the Writ Petitioner is always available and would not flee away from justice. It is the specific case of the Writ Petitioner that pendency of criminal case against the Writ Petitioner should not lead to denial of passport facilities. 8. 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 Ministry of SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 5 External Affairs, Government of India issued a Notification vide GSR No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993. Relevant portion of 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 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. SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 6 9. 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. 10. 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 1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572. 2 1978 (1) SCC 248. SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 7 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.” 11. The Writ Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal registered for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, wherein, vide order dated 02.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.60 of 2025, suspension of the operation of the imprisonment imposed by the trial Court was granted. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not involve moral turpitude. As regards C.C.No.202 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, the matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat and an Award dated 08.03.2025 was passed by the Lok Adalat Bench, Ponnur, whereunder the petitioner was acquitted of the offences alleged. SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 8 12. As regards pendency of Crime No.56 of 2023 of Ponnur Rural Police Station, 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 3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP). SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 9 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 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. SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 10 Merely because the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case, it cannot disqualify him from holding or possessing a passport. 13. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner would abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and present/ appear before the Court as and when required without fail. 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. 14. 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 renewal of passport to him for a period of five years. SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 11 15. However, this order shall not preclude 4th respondent- Station House Officer, Ponnur Rural Police Station, Guntur district from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner, for conduct of the investigation of the aforesaid crime for any other purposes. 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. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:21.01.2026 Asr SRK, J WP No.35734 of 2025 12 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.35734 of 2025 Date:21.01.2026 Asr