Avss vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 251 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.220 of 2022
                            PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.      Date                                ORDER                             OFFICE
No.                                                                            NOTE

                   AVSS,J
2     20.01.2022
                           Initially,        on      26.03.2012,         the
                   respondent passport authorities granted

passport in favour of the petitioner herein for a period of ten (10) years i.e., till 25.03.2022.

On 03.08.2021, petitioner applied for reissuance of the passport. On 03.09.2021, the 2nd respondent/ Regional Passport Officer herein reissued the passport in favour of the petitioner which is valid till 02.09.2031. Thereafter, on 26.10.2021, the 2nd respondent/ Regional Passport Officer called for explanation from the petitioner obviously after receipt of the police verification report.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner sent his explanation through email vide letter dated 01.12.2021. The 2nd respondent/ Regional Passport Officer, while referring to the involvement of the petitioner in five (5) crimes, requested to furnish court acquittal order/no objection certificate from the competent court in terms of G.S.R.570(E) dated 25.08.1993.

It is also brought to the notice of this court that on 01.12.2021, the petitioner herein surrendered his passport in the Office of the 2nd respondent and the Office of the 2nd respondent issued surrender certificate on the even date.

In the above background, questioning the retention of the passport by the 2nd respondent, petitioner herein has come up before this court with the present writ petition.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner precisely in the present writ petition is the statutory fetters as mentioned in Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act,1967 cannot be made applicable while renewing the passport and after reissuance of the passport. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Mr.Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata S/o. Palukuri Venkateswara Rao -vs- Union of India and others. In the said judgment, the Karnataka high court at paragraph Nos.11,13,15,16 held as under:

A reading of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 indicates that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if a criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant in India. However, the said provision does not provide for refusing to issue a passport for a person who intends to travel back to India.

Hence, reading of this provision clearly indicates that it is applicable only for issuing a fresh passport and not for renewal of passport and this view is fortified by decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kanna -vs- Central Bureau of Investigation (supra). Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 has held that the Passport Authority can refuse to issue passport or an endorsement for visiting any country but nowhere in the provision it is mentioned that even for renewal of passport, the Authority can refuse to renew the passport.

In the instant case, petitioner is seeking for renewal for his passport, therefore, said request cannot be rejected by taking shelter under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1697 and Notification bearing No.G.S.R 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry External Affairs, Government of India.

The Apex Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney supra, has held that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. Hence, petitioner's right to travel cannot be curtailed on the pretext that a criminal case is pending against him by refusing to renew his passport.

The Apex Court in the case Suresh Nanda -vs- CBI supra has held that despite criminal case filed against the petitioner therein he was entitled to hold the passport, since the passport had not been impounded in accordance with law. Hence, merely because a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, he cannot be disqualified from holding a passport, when admittedly his passport has not been impounded under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967. Sri Krishna Bhusan Chowdary, Learned Additional Standing Counsel requests a short accommodation for filing counter affidavit and in order to meet the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Post on 01.02.2022.

________ AVSS,J

BSP