Telangana High Court
Chekurthi Madhusudhan Reddy vs The Union Of India on 10 January, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.780 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents.
2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the relief as under:
"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not renewing petitioner's Passport bearing No.L6528962 pursuant to the application vide File number HY75C5006658923 dated 31.01.2023 on the ground of pending Criminal Case vide C.C.No.617 of 2020 U/s 3 and 4 of the Telangana Gaming Act on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of The Passports Act, 1967 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to renew petitioner's passport bearing No. L6528962 pursuant to the application dated 31.01.2023 without reference to the said criminal case and the letter of the 2nd respondent dated 09.02.2023 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner herein is holder of passport bearing No.L6528962 which is valid upto 04.12.2023. The petitioner had submitted online application bearing No.HY75C5006658923 dated 31.01.2023 to respondent No.2, with a request to renew the said passport. The same was 2 SN, J W.P. No.780 of 2024 not considered by the respondent No.2 on the ground that, the petitioner is involved in criminal case vide C.C.No.617 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial First-Class of Magistrate at Mancherial for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Telangana Gaming Act. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has not submitted explanation of the notice, dated 09.02.2023 issued to the petitioner till as on date.
5. PERUSED THE RECORD.
This Court under similar circumstances had been passing orders directing the respondent-Regional Passport Authority to consider the application of the petitioner seeking renewal of passport. The Respondent cannot refuse the renewal of passport of the petitioner on the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner and the said action of the respondent is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967 and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2020 Crl.L.J.(SC) 572 3 SN, J W.P. No.780 of 2024
6. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, pendency of criminal cases and 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. Section 6.2(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and also Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C. 4 SN, J W.P. No.780 of 2024
7. The Apex Court in another judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under:
"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."
8. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, 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. Para 5 of the said judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below:
"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 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 5 SN, J W.P. No.780 of 2024 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.
9. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in 2019 SCC online SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others it is observed at para 5 as under:
"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."
10. Referring to the said principle and also the principles laid down by the Apex Court in several other judgments, considering the guidelines issued by the Union of India from time to time, the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC online P & H 1176 held that a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure. 6
SN, J W.P. No.780 of 2024
11. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in Ganni Bhaskara Rao Vs. Union of India and another at paras 4, 5 and 6, it is observed as under:
"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.
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 Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.
12. In view of the above, this Court opines that mere pendency of criminal case is not a ground to decline renewal of passport. Further, the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial Court in concluding trial. Therefore, the petitioner herein 7 SN, J W.P. No.780 of 2024 sought issuance of necessary directions to respondent for consideration of the application of the petitioner for renewal of passport. Thus, on the ground of pendency of the above criminal case, passport cannot be denied to the petitioner.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the petitioner herein to submit explanation to the notice dated 09.02.2023 issued to the petitioner within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order thereafter the respondent No.2 herein shall consider the said explanation and the request of the petitioner for renewal of petitioners passport in accordance to law, taking into consideration the view taken by the High Courts and Supreme Court in all the Judgments referred to and extracted above without reference to the pendency of the proceedings in C.C.No.617 of 2020, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in C.C.No.617 of 2020, pending on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class of Magistrate, Mancherial, stating that he will not leave India during pendency of the said C.C. without permission of the Court and that he will 8 SN, J W.P. No.780 of 2024 co-operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said C.C.;
ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom;
iii) The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy of aforesaid undertaking before the Respondent No.2-Passport Officer for renewal of his passport;
iv) The Respondent No.2-Passport Officer shall consider the said application in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner for renewal of his passport in accordance with law, within two (03) weeks from the date of said application;
v) On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original renewed Passport before the trial Court in C.C.No.617 of 2020; and
vi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the trial Court seeking permission to travel aboard and it is for the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law.9
SN, J W.P. No.780 of 2024 However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.
__________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 10th January, 2024 ssm