APHC010209012026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10608/2026 Between: 1. THUMU VENKATA BALAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O T. GOPALA REDDY, AGE 33 YEARS, R/O. NADUMURI COLONY, 3RD LINE, BEHIND BEST PRICE, KAKANI ROAD, SIMS COLLEGE, KOTHAPETA TALUK, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI, INDIA. 110001 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, OPP TO RADIO STATION, GOVERNERPET, M.G ROAD, VIJAYAWADA.520001 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SRIKALAHASTI RURAL POLICE STATION. CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517001 ...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 pass an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus 2 RC, J W.P.No.10608 of 2026 by declaring the action of Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 in retaining the passport of the petitioner bearing No. Z8270084, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, and also in violation of Section 10(5) of the Passport Act, 1967, consequentially direct the Respondent No.2 to release the Passport of Petitioner vide Passport bearing No. Z8270084 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 more particularly Respondent No.2 to immediately return the passport to the petitioner, pending determination of Writ Petition and may be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P PADMAVATHI (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he has been arrayed as sole accused in C.C.No.109 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District, for the alleged offences under Sections 125(A), 125(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, arising out of FIR.No.183 of 2024. It is further case of the petitioner that for the purpose of employment, he applied for the passport vide application No.VJ2077491941125, dated 17.03.2025, under Tatkal category 3 RC, J W.P.No.10608 of 2026 and the 2nd respondent issued passport bearing No.Z8270084 to the petitioner and the same was valid up to 16.03.2035 for a period of 10 years. It is further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice vide Notice No.SCN/321223747/25, dated 25.03.2025, stating that an adverse report dated 19.03.2025 has been received from the police authority, stating that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.183 of 2024, wherein charge sheet has been filed and the same is numbered as C.C.No.109 of 2025, and that suppressing the said factum, the petitioner obtained passport. As such, the petitioner was directed to surrender the passport. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted explanation informing the respondents that he has no knowledge about the pendency of the criminal case against him at the time of applying the passport and requested the respondent authorities to consider the same and drop the action of surrendering the passport. However, the 2nd respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, directed the petitioner to immediately surrender the passport. Having no other option, the petitioner surrendered the passport on 17.04.2026 and filed the present Writ Petition. 4 RC, J W.P.No.10608 of 2026 2. Heard Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Padmavathi, learned central Government Counsel for the Passport Authority and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that at the time of applying for passport, the petitioner was not aware of pendency of criminal case vide C.C.No.109 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District, and the passport authority subsequently issued the passport. When the authorities came to know about the pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, they directed the petitioner to surrender the passport. In fact, there is no provision available under the Passports Act, 1967, for surrendering the passport and no orders have been passed from the competent Court in that regard. If the respondents have any intention to impound the passport and if any ground is available to them under law, they have to issue notice under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967. Without resorting to such procedure and without there being any direction from the competent Court, the authorities cannot retain the petitioner’s passport. It amounts to violation of the rights 5 RC, J W.P.No.10608 of 2026 guaranteed under the Constitution. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Padmavathi, learned Central Government Counsel, on counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner himself had surrendered the passport to the respondent authorities, duly informing them that he would obtain an order from the Court where the criminal case is pending and in such circumstances, the passport authority, being a custodian of the passport document by virtue of Section 17 of the Act, has taken custody of the said passport. She further contended that so far, no steps have been initiated for impounding the passport under Section 10 of the Act. She fairly submitted that there is no direction from any Court or much less, from the Court where the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, he himself surrendered the passport and the same has been taken into custody. Therefore, the petitioner now cannot raise unnecessary allegations against the respondents. As such, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the respective parties. 6 RC, J W.P.No.10608 of 2026 6. The short point that falls for consideration is whether the respondent authorities have any power to retain the petitioner’s passport without there being any direction from the competent Court. Admittedly, a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, vide C.C.No.109 of 2025, wherein the petitioner is sole accused, and there is no direction from the competent Court to the passport authorities to retain the petitioner’s passport. The only available provision for the respondent authorities to impound the passport is by virtue of Section 10 of the Act. The submission made by learned Central Government Counsel that by virtue of Section 17 of the Act, the respondents can retain the passport. 7. For better adjudication of the matter, Section 17 of the Passport Act, 1967, reads as follows: “A passport or travel document issued under this Act shall at all times remain the property of the Central Government.” 8. The said provision only indicates that the travel document issued under the said Act at all times remain the property of the Central Government. That does not mean that the authorities can retain the passport without there being any order of the Court or without any jurisdiction. As such, the contention of the learned Central Government Counsel is untenable because the Central Government is only a custodian of the passport and cannot retain 7 RC, J W.P.No.10608 of 2026 the passport indefinitely merely because the petitioner voluntarily surrendered the same. 7. In view of the same, retaining the petitioner’s passport amounts to curtailing the petitioner’s right to travel guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. As such, the action of the respondents in retaining the passport of the petitioner is unsustainable, illegal and contrary to law. The petitioner has made out a case warranting interference of this Court. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing the following order: “The authority concerned shall forthwith return the passport to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall take necessary permission from the competent Court where the criminal case is pending against him. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 25.08.2026 NOTE: Issue CC by 03.09.2026 B/o. ANS