APHC010711712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 170/2026 Between: 1. ABDUL MASTAN SHAIK, S/O. ABDUL JABBAR SHAIK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 17-411, NVR STREET, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SHASTRY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVERNMENT, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VUBBARA DUSHYANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. TENEPALLI NIRANJAN ( SC FOR CENT GOVT) ) The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 170 of 2026 O R D E R: This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief: <…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not renewing the petitioners passport bearing No. M2270688 pursuant to the application vide File No.VJ1077183456324 dated 05.12.2024 and releasing/issuing the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of Natural Justice and also violate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions and rules The Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith renew and issue the passport to the petitioner and pass …= 2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that the Writ Petitioner obtained Passport bearing No.M2270688 and it is valid from 09.02.2016 to 22.09.2024; and he intends to visit United States of America; that as the Writ Petitioner’s passport expired on 22.09.2024, he made an application on 05.12.2024 vide Application No.VJ1077183456324 for renewal/reissue passport with 2nd respondent authority along with all requisite documents, but 2nd respondent sent a letter dated 09.12.2024 to the Writ Petitioner stating that a case in Crime SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 3 No.113 of 2022 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 341 read with 149 IPC was registered against him and the said case is taken on file as Calendar Case No.1144 of 2022 pending on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The said criminal case does not involve any allegation of violence, fraud, moral turpitude, national security, public order or international ramifications; that the Writ Petitioner was arrayed as accused without attribution of any specific overt act and merely on suspicion; that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as an automatic disqualification for renewal or reissuance of a Passport. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. During arguments, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the Writ Petition affidavit. 4. Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the Writ Petitioner suppressed the fact of registration of FIR in Crime No.113 of 2022 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 341 read with 149 IPC and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and it was taken on file as SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 4 Calendar Case No.1144 of 2022 pending on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The Writ Petitioner was called upon, to furnish proper explanation regarding the circumstances under which he had suppressed the material information in the application. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.3 reiterated the contention of learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and further contended that if the passport of the Writ Petitioner is renewed, there is every likelihood of Writ Petitioner fleeing away from case trial. 6. Perused the entire material available on record. 7. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that Writ Petitioner, who is aged about 55 years, is arrayed as accused in Calendar Case No.1144 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 341 read with 149 IPC. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for Writ Petitioner that because of pendency of criminal case in Calendar Case No.1144 of 2022, the application made by the Writ Petitioner for renewing his passport was rejected by the respondents. SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 5 9. Pursuant to Passport Renewal application vide Application No.VJ1077183456324 made by the Writ Petitioner, the Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada vide Letter Ref.No: SCN/320215051/24, reported that Writ Petitioner is involved in Calendar Case No.1144 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle and he was directed to submit case clearance orders within 30 days, and if the petitioner fails to submit the explanation or required documents within the stipulated period, action will be taken as per the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 without further notice. 10. It is the specific contention of Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner was falsely implicated as accused in the said case 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 and further that Writ Petitioner’s passport has to be renewed for a period of five (5) years. 11. 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 SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 6 reject the application for issuance of a passport, if criminal proceedings are pending in any Court in India. The Government of India issued a Notification vide GSR No.570E, dated 25.08.1993. 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 W.P.No.170 of 2026 7 12. 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. 13. 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 of 1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572. 2 1978 (1) SCC 248. SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 8 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.= 14. 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 3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP). SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 9 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 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 SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 10 period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court. 15. The Writ Petitioner is arrayed as accused in the aforesaid Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 341 read with 149 IPC. 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. As held in Ganni Bhaskara Rao Case (3 supra), mere fact that a criminal case is pending against a person, is not a ground to conclude that he cannot posses or hold a passport. 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 SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 11 25.08.1993 and directs the authority concerned to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of passport to him. The passport shall be renewed with a validity of five (05) years, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. 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. ________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Dated:28.01.2026. Asr SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 12 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.170 of 2026 Date:28.01.2026 SRK, J W.P.No.170 of 2026 13 Asr