Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mummaneni Surya Prakasha Rao, vs Union Of India,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6915 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6915 AP
Judgement Date : 13 September, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mummaneni Surya Prakasha Rao, vs Union Of India, on 13 September, 2022
            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                         W.P.No.19895 of 2022

ORDER:

The petitioner had been issued passport bearing No.J2218433. As

the same was expiring, the petitioner had sought renewal of the passport

by way of an application bearing No.VJ2073315325721 dated 10.03.2021.

Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, who is passport authority, had informed

the petitioner that the police verification report had revealed that the

petitioner has involved in Crime No.464 of 2018 under various provisions

of I.P.C., and A.P. Excise Act, before Bhavanipuram Police Station,

Vijayawada, and that the renewal of passport would require further

clarification. Aggrieved by the said refusal of the 2nd respondent renewing

his passport, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the

present writ petition.

2. Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel, appearing for

the petitioner would submit that the passport officer would be entitled to

refuse renewal of the passport only in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the

Passports Act and none of the conditions set out in the said provision

would apply to the petitioner. It is her case that the provisions of Section

6(2)(f) of the passports Act would not be applicable as there is no case

pending before any Criminal Court in India. She further submits that it is

only when cognizance of a criminal case is taken by the Court, the

conditions set out under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act would be

applicable, and in the present case no such cognizance has been taken.

3. The learned Government Pleader for Home, after obtaining

instructions, submits that a charge sheet has been filed before the Chief 2 RRR,J W.P.No.19895 of 2022

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in relation to this crime vide CF

No.1187/2021 dated 06.07.2021 and awaiting for cognizance of the Court.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated

27.09.2021 in Crl.A.No.1342 of 2017 in the case of Vangala Kasturi

Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, after

considering Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act had held that the passport

authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of

pendency of a criminal appeal and directed the passport authority to

renew the passport.

5. The issue and renewal of passports is regulated by the

Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2), extracted below, is relevant for this

purpose.

(2) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:-

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.,

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.,

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India.,

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country.,

(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a Court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years., 3 RRR,J W.P.No.19895 of 2022

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court of India.,

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a Court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court.,

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation.,

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.

6. The grounds on which, the renewal of the passport of the

petitioner is being refused could, at best, fall within Section 6 (2) (f) of the

Passport Act. This provision has been considered in various cases and the

ambit of this provision is fairly settled.

7. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated

04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 held that mere pendency of a First

Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a

regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is

taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal

proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport

would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court.

8. The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E),

dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required

from a Court, only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f).

9. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only

when there is a pending proceeding before the Criminal Court after 4 RRR,J W.P.No.19895 of 2022

cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no

pending criminal proceeding before the Court.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction

to the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, for

renewal of his passport, without raising any objection relating to the

pendency of Crime No.464 of 2018 of Bhavanipuram Police Station,

Vijayawada.

11. However, this order shall not preclude the 5th respondent

from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the

petitioner for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

13th September, 2022 Js.

                          5                            RRR,J
                                       W.P.No.19895 of 2022




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




               W.P.No.19895 of 2022




                13th September, 2022
Js.
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter