Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mohan Naidu Nallabothula vs The Union Of India And Others on 8 August, 2024

 APHC010212392024
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                            [3329]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                      PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 10736/2024

Between:

Mohan Naidu Nallabothula,                                           ...PETITIONER

                                         AND

Union Of India and Others                                       ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. P SAI SURYA TEJA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

     2. GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not renewing the passport of the petitioner (Passport No.L8717426) as per application No.VJ807612870 4324, dated 04.01.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to renew and issue the passport to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein applied for Passport and the same has been

issued on 29.04.2014 vide Passport No.L8717426. The said passport was set

to expired on 24.04.2024. Then, the petitioner applied for renewal of passport

before Respondent No.5 vide Application file No.VJ8076128704324, dated

04.01.2024.

4. While so, Respondent No.3 sent a letter dated 07.03.2024 to the

petitioner stating that in the Police verification report it is informed that the

petitioner herein is accused / convicted in criminal / Court case and asked the

petitioner to submit an explanation and the required documents to

Respondent No.4 / Enquiry Officer at Vijayawada within 30 days. Pursuant to

which, the petitioner submitted an explanation to the Passport authorities /

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 22.03.2024 and sent the same through

Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) and the same was

served upon Respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 26.03.2024. Even after receipt of

the explanation from the petitioner, the Respondents / the Passport Authorities

neither considered the petitioner's application nor renewed the passport of the

petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely

implicated in a Criminal Case as Accused No.23 basing on the confession of

co-accused in Crime vide Crime No.136 of 2019 of Bangarupalyam Police

Station and the petitioner had not received any notices/summons regarding the said Criminal Case. So far, the crime has not been taken into cognizance

by the Criminal Court concerned and charge sheet is not yet numbered. He

further submits that the case is pending before the Hon'ble Special Court for

Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Trial of cases related to Red Sanders

smuggling, Tirupati and the case is still at PRC stage only i.e. vide PRC

No.1125 of 2023.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the right to travel

is indeed a fundamental right and it cannot be deprived off under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted

the written instructions issued by the Respondents, wherein it is stated that

the petitioner herein has applied for re-issue of Passport No.L8717426 vide

File No.VJ8076128704324 on 04.01.2024 and the file has been processed

under pre-police verification basis.

8. It is further stated that pursuant to the police verification report dated

19.01.2024, the applicant / the petitioner involved in Cr.No.136 of 2019 under

Sections 379, 447, 427, 414 read with 34 IPC, Section 20 (1)(d)(1) read with

20(1)(C)(ii)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x), Section 36 read with 32 A of Forest Act at

Bangarupalem Police Station. Now the case is pending before the Hon'ble

Special Court for Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class Trail of cases regarding red

sanders smuggling, Tirupathi vide PRC.No.1125 of 2023.

9. It is further stated that due to the petitioner / applicant suppress the

information about Criminal Case, the Respondents issued Show Cause Notice

vide SCN/317295775/24, dated 07.03.2024.

10. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel, in our view, it

is appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, as

extracted herein under:

"Section 6(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;

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

11. The issue of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section

6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose.

12. It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go abroad

has much social value and represents the basic human right of great

significance.

13. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others 1 , the

Higher Court for the State of Telangana held as follows:

6. The Apex Court in the 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."

W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023

14. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated

09.04.2019 reported in Laws 2019(2) SCC online SC 2048 in Satish

Chandra Verma vs. Union of India (UOI) and others at para 4

observed 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."

14. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the present

writ petition is allowed and the notice issued by the Respondents vide Letter

Ref No.SCN/317295775/24, dated 07.03.2024 is hereby set-aside

15. Further, the Respondents are directed to consider the application of the

petitioner vide VJ8076128704324, dated 04.01.2024 without referring to the

criminal case i.e. vide FIR No.136 of 2019, dated 20.09.2019 on the file of

Bangarupalyam Police Station, Chittoor District and renew the passport of the

petitioner, if otherwise the application is in order, within a period of three

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

16. This order shall not preclude the Respondents from taking such steps

as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other