Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Avnash Anumolu vs The Regional Passport Office, on 23 June, 2022
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16750 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner has a passport bearing No.Z5913215
issued by the respondent. The petitioner had received a show
cause notice dated 11.02.2020 which was followed up with
another notice dated 04.03.2020. This show cause notice
stated that the respondent had received an adverse report
from the police and called upon the petitioner to show cause
why the passport of the petitioner should not be impounded. It
appears that the petitioner had thereupon submitted his reply
along with a copy of the final report, filed by the investigating
officer in Crime No.427 of 2016, registered in
Muvvalavanipalem police station. The final report produced by
the petitioner shows that the investigation had not revealed
any offence being committed and the said crime was sought to
be closed as a case of mistake of fact.
2. The petitioner has now approached this Court with
the complaint that the respondent is not closing the enquiry
despite the fact that there is no criminal case against the
petitioner in which cognizance has been taken by any Court.
3. Smt.Jyothi Ratna Anumolu learned counsel,
appearing for the petitioner relies upon the Judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satwant Sing Sawhney vs.
D.Ramarathnam1, Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India2 and
the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in
J.Mathanagopal vs. The Regional Passport Officer
MANU/TN/4104/2018 to contend that Section 6(2)(f) of the
Passport Act, which is the relevant provision, should be
interpreted to mean that a passport can be impounded or an
application for passport can be rejected only in the event of
the said applicant being found to be an accused in a criminal
case in which a criminal Court has taken cognizance. She
contends that the present case is at best a case where an F.I.R
is pending against the petitioner. She would also point out
that the said crime has already been investigated and the
investigating officer has already concluded that there was no
case against the petitioner.
4. The learned Assistant Solicitor General would
submit that in view of the adverse report given by the police
authorities, the proceedings for impounding the passport of
the petitioner had been initiated. He would further submit that
despite various requests and notices, there has been no
response from the police authorities for the respondent to
arrive at a conclusion that the said proceeding requires to be
closed.
5. Having heard both sides, it is clear that the
respondent does not have any material before him to come to
a conclusion that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal
case in which a Court of appropriate jurisdiction has taken
AIR 1967 SC 1836
(1978) 1 SCC 248
cognizance. In the absence of such cognizance, the provisions
of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act would not come into play.
Further, the Central Government has already issued a
clarification on this issue in G.S.R.No.570E, dated 25.08.1993
to the effect that the provisions of Section 6 (2)(f) of the
Passport Act would become applicable only where there is a
cognizance by a criminal Court and any further travel of an
accused in such a case would be permissible only upon no
objection being given by the said criminal Court.
6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed
directing the respondent not to interfere with any further
travel of the petitioner unless it is found that the petitioner
has been made an accused in a criminal case in which a Court
of competent jurisdiction has taken cognizance. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 23-06-2022
RJS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16750 of 2022
Date : 23.06.2022
RJS
