Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Siva Kumar Reddy Kethi Reddy vs Union Of India on 8 August, 2024

APHC010271652024
                         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: 13724/2024

Between:

Siva Kumar Reddy Kethi Reddy,                                       ...PETITIONER

                                         AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                          ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. V SURENDRA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. GP FOR HOME

     2. BACHINA HANUMANTHA RAO (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

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 by declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not renewing petitioner's Passport bearing No.L3138154 pursuant to the explanation as submitted to the impugned Letter Ref.No.SCN/317445499/24, dated 21.03.2024 on the ground of pending C.C.No.176 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati is as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to the settled law by this Hon'ble Court and the Apex Court and also contrary to the scheme of Indian Passport Act, 1967 and consequently set aside the impugned Letter Ref:No.SCN/317445499/24, dated 21.03.2024 and direct the Respondent No.2 to renew the petitioner's Passport bearing No.L3138154 without any reference to the pending criminal cases and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Cr.No.9 of 2018 is

registered by the Alipiri Police, Tirupati against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 304A, 337, 279 of IPC. Later the Police filed a

final report and cognizance was taken by the learned judge and numbered as

C.C.No.176 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

The matter is pending for consideration and trial is not yet commenced in the

said matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had

applied for renewal of passport to attend the convocation of his children in

abroad. Respondent No.2 office issued a Letter vide Ref.No.SCN/317445499,

dated 21.03.2024, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation and

requested to renew the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the Respondent No.2 Office

had received the explanation of the petitioner on 05.04.2024. But,

Respondent No.2 neither considered the explanation of the petitioner nor

renewed the passport of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental right of

the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his wish as held

in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka

Gandhi vs. Union of India1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down by

this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India and others 2. In view of

the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport.

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

written instructions dated 16.07.2024 issued by the Respondents / Regional

Passport Office, Vijayawada wherein it is stated that the petitioner has applied

for re-issuance of Passport No.L3138154 vide File No.VJ1076326268924 on

05.03.2024. The file has been processed under post-police verification basis.

8. It is further stated that as per Police Authorities report the applicant was

involved in Cr.No.09-2018 under Sections 304A, 337, 279 of IPC of Alipiri

Police Station, Tirupati District and the case is PT vide CC No.176 of 2020 on

the file of IV Additional Junior civil Judge Court, Tirupati. The case posted to

22.03.2024 for witnesses examination. As the petitioner suppressed the

information about Criminal Case in the application form. Hence the

Respondent Office has issued a show cause notice vide SCN/317445499/24,

dated 21.03.2024. No explanation received from the petitioner till date. The

1978 AIR 597

W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 passport bearing No.X40996885, dated 07.03.2024 valid up to 06.03.2034 is

still with the petitioner.

9. It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned

Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik's Case3, the petitioner is required to obtain orders

from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the

Respondents and also perused the material placed on record.

11. In Kadar Valli Shaik's Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with

various case law on the subject and passed a detailed order., the operative

portion of which reads as follows:-

(a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected.

(b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial.

(c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993.

W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023

12. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of

the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as

follows:-

"9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of2020 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.

10. 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)."

11. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when there is a pending proceedings before the Criminal Court after cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court."

13. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others4, 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

W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

7. 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 v 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. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of

the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the application of

the petitioner, and renew his passport, in accordance with law, without raising any

objection relating to the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.176 of 2020 on the file of VI

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, within a period of two (02) weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior

permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the

trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court.

16. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution 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.