Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sivakumar Devisetty vs The Union Of India And Others on 8 August, 2024
APHC010312812024
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: 15794/2024
Between:
Sivakumar Devisetty ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VUBBARA DUSHYANTH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ALEKHYA TADASINA(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 in
the form of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondent No.2 in not renewing the petitioner's passport
bearing No.N7742109, pursuant to the application vide File
No.VJ1076478730124 on the ground of pending Criminal
proceedings vide F.I.R.No.56 of 2019 on the file of Nandalur
Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District as illegal, arbitrary,
violation of principles of natural justice and also violate of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the
provisions and rules The Passport Act, 1967 and consequently
direct the Respondents to renew and issue the passport to the
petitioner with a validity of 10 years without any reference to
the above said crime forthwith in the interest of justice and pass
appropriate order as may deem fit and proper tin the
circumstances of the case and to pass such other order(s)..."
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. The petitioner herein was holding a valid Passport bearing
No.N7742109 issued on 09.02.2016 which is valid up to 08.02.2026. While
so, as the petitioner herein is likely to travel to Kuwait, the prerequisite
condition to travel to Kuwait is that the passport should have validity of
minimum three years before the date of expiry. Accordingly, the petitioner
filed an application for renewal to the Respondent Authorities vide Application
No.VJ1076478730124, dated 23.04.2024. Then, Respondent No.2 vide letter
in Ref.No.SCN/318405157/24, dated 04.07.2024 sought clarification from the
petitioner for issuing the renewal passport on the ground that adverse police
report has been received on investigation, as the petitioner was involved in a
criminal proceedings vide Crime No.56 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 447,
324 read with 149 IPC on the file of Nandalur Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa
District.
4. 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.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that as
per the Ministry's GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, when a criminal
case is pending against the applicant in any Criminal Court, the applicant has to
produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the
Court below where case is pending along with GSR 570(E) undertaking. Hence, if
the Court gives permission to the applicant to travel abroad and directs the
Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order
in accordance with the GSR 570(E).
6. 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.
7. The issue of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section
6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose.
8. 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.
9. 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:
W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023
"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."
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 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."
10. 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/318405157/24, dated 04.07.2024 is hereby set-aside.
11. Further the Respondents are directed to consider the application of the
petitioner without referring to the criminal case i.e. FIR No.56 of 2019 on the
file of Nandalur Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa Distirct and renew the passport
to 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.
12. This order shall not preclude the Respondents 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.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
8th August, 2024
Knr
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.15794 of 2024
8th August, 2024
Knr
