Telangana High Court
Bochala Enoch Sandy vs Union Of India on 21 March, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.7630 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Asad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard learned counsel representing Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, Dy. Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is that, the petitioner herein had applied for issuance of passport vide online application bearing No.HY2065430830723 to respondent No.2 along with all the requisite documents and fees prescribed. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 02.08.2023, the respondent No.2 issued a letter vide reference No.SCN/315410001/23, dated 02.08.2023 seeking clarification in reference to petitioner's involvement with respect to F.I.R.No.897 of 2021 registered against the petitioner under Sections 427, 182, 183, 184, 187, 205, 201, 279, 337 IPC read with 34 of IPC of Narsingi P.S., Cyberabad, and police had filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.4451 of 2021 and the same is pending on the file of XVI Additional 2 SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024 Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Rajender Nagar, Cyberabad in which the petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.4.
It is further the case of the petitioner the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to reply to the Notice, dated 02.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner as the petitioner is not the main accused and had been simply arrayed in the said case as an ancillary to the Crime, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner. The said case is pertaining to offences relating to Driving, wherein the Complainant alleges only simple injury and had been recovered.
The petitioner further submits that, both the complainant and all Accused in the C.C.No.4451 of 2021 have compromised and have filed Joint Compromise Memo along with Joint Quash Petition before this Hon'ble Court vide Crl.P.No.3055 of 2024 and the Court vide its order dated 18.03.2024 was pleased to direct recording of compromise of both parties on or before 26.03.2024 before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee and the Compromise before the Legal Services Committee had even been recorded on 21.03.2024.
The petitioner further submits that petitioner had to travel abroad with petitioner's family for a family function on 3 SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024 22.03.2024. The petitioner herein already booked tickets to Travel and the same had been field as material documents along with the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition. The petitioner on 19.03.2024 approached the office of the 2nd respondent vide petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2024 for processing of petitioner's passport along with information of Compromise vide Crl.P.No.3055 of 2024, citing urgency of Travel. The 2nd respondent office informed the petitioner that they will not be able to process the application unless and until there is a direction from this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the petitioner approached the Court by way of filing the present Writ petition. Hence, the petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that petitioner herein filed Joint Compromise Memo along with Joint Quash Petition before this Hon'ble Court vide Crl.P.No.3055 of 2024 and the Court vide its order dated 18.03.2024 was pleased to direct recording of compromise of both parties on or before 26.03.2024 before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee and the Compromise before the Legal Services Committee took place on 21.03.2024, therefore, the petitioner sought to issue necessary directions to the respondent No.2 for consideration of petitioner's 4 SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024 application for issuance of passport. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that, respondents cannot refuse the issuance of passport facilities to the petitioner on the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner and which in fact ended with a joint compromise Memo along with Joint Quash Petition vide Crl.P.No.3055 of 2024, dated 18.03.2024 before the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee on 21.03.2024 and the said action of the respondents in refusing to issue passport services to the petitioner is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967.
5. The learned Counsel representing Dy. Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's explanation dated 19.03.2024, submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 02.08.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent herein, within a reasonable period. PERUSED THE RECORD.
6. This court opines that pendency of criminal case against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny 5 SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024 issuance of Passport facilities to the petitioner and the right to personal liberty of the petitioner would include not only the right to travel abroad but also the right to possess a Passport. In the present case the matter had even been compromised between the parties by the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee on 21.03.2024.
7. It is 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 6 SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024 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 issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C.
8. 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."
9. The Apex Court in Maneka 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 7 SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024 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 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.
10. 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 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."8
SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024
11. 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.
12. In view of the above, this Court opines that mere pendency of criminal case is not a ground to decline issuance of passport. Further, the petitioner herein submits that both the complainant and all Accused in the C.C.No.4451 of 2021 have compromised and have filed Joint Compromise Memo along with Joint Quash Petition before this Hon'ble Court vide Crl.P.No.3055 of 2024 and the Court vide its order dated 18.03.2024 was pleased to direct recording of compromise of both parties on or before 26.03.2024 before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee and the Compromise before the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee had even been recorded on 21.03.2024. Therefore this Court opines that the 2nd respondent is bound to process the file of the petitioner vide 9 SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024 file No. HY2065430830723 for issuance of passport duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and other courts in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, duly considering petitioner's explanation dated 19.03.2024 submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 02.08.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, in accordance to law.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing respondent No.2 to consider the detailed explanation furnished by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, dated 19.03.2024 in response to the notice dated 02.08.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent duly taking into consideration the latest development today i.e., on 21.03.2024, that the subject issue had been compromised between the parties concerned by the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, and pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application dated 02.06.2023 seeking issuance of passport facilities vide file bearing No.HY2065430830723 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order duly taking into consideration the law laid down 10 SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024 by the Supreme Court and the High Courts in all the Judgments referred to and extracted above without reference to the pendency of the proceedings in C.C. No.4451 of 2021 and pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application dated 02.06.2023 seeking issuance of passport and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 21st March, 2024 Note: Issue C.C. by today B/o: ksl.
11
SN, J W.P. No.7630 of 2024 HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.7630 of 2024 DATED:21.03.2024 Note: Issue C.C. by today B/o: ksl