Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Veernarayana Babu Gorantla vs Cbi on 8 August, 2024

APHC010306242024
                         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: 15465/2024

Between:

Veernarayana Babu Gorantla                                          ...PETITIONER

                                          AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. GP FOR HOME

     2. 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.M1142123, despite an Application made by the petitioner bearing File No.VJA076663356724, dated 19.06.2024 on the ground that an F.I.R.No.134 of 2011 is registered before the One Town Police Station, Ongole, against the petitioner and the investigation of the FIR is pending as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Section 6 of Passport Act, 1967 and contrary to the ratio laid down in the catena of judgments of this Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. CBI, 2021 SCC Online SC 3549 and consequently direct the Respondents to renew the Passport of the petitioner and to pass such other order(s)..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein was initially issued a Passport bearing

No.Y414618 on 21.01.1987. On 18.08.2014, the petitioner's Passport was

renewed and he was issued a new Passport bearing No.M1142123, which is

valid until 17.08.2024. Then the petitioner submitted his application to

Respondent No.2 Authorities to renew his current Passport bearing

No.M1142123. But, till date, no action has been taken by Respondent No.2.

4. While so, Respondent No.2 through Reference No.SCN/318339153/

234, dated 26.06.2024 has addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that the

FIR No.131 of 2011 has been registered against the petitioner before I Town

Police Station, Ongole and sought for petitioner's explanation. On

08.07.2024, the petitioner appeared before the Respondent Authorities and

submitted his explanation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide

S.A.No.746 of 2011 has granted the stay of all further proceedings in FIR No.134 of 2011, which is still in force. He further submits that a false case has

been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner had not committed

any offence as alleged there under the FIR, that the investigation is still

pending and that no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner.

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 Government Pleader for Home

submitted the written instructions dated 24.07.2024 issued by Respondent

No.4 / Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, wherein it is stated that

the factual aspects of the case is that one Sri Patibandla Gopala Swamy filed

a private complaint against the petitioner and others before the I Additional

District Judge, Ongole. And the same was forwarded to Respondent No.4 to

Court. Basing on the complaint, Respondent No.4 registered the crime vide

Cr.No.134 of 2011 under Section 467 IPC, 34 IPC, 156(3) Cr.P.C of Ongole

I Town police Station, dated 24.06.2011. In the present crime the petitioner is

arrayed as A2. Earlier Sri Patibandla Gopala Swamy filed original Suit against

the petitioner and others vide O.S.No.86 of 2003 before the I Additional

District Judge, Ongole. Further in respect of the same, Sri Patibandla Gopala

Swamy filed S.A.M.P.No.1677 of 2011 in S.A.No.746 of 2011, wherein the

Hon'ble High Court grant interim stay on 13.07.2011. As there is an interim

stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court, the crime investigation is pending.

8. It is further stated that except investigating on Antecedent / Verification

of the petitioner and submission of the Report to the Passport Authority,

Respondent No.4 is no way concerned to issue of Passport to the petitioner.

Respondent No.2 is the answering Respondent in the present writ petition.

9. 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.

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

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

11. 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.

12. 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

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."

13. 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. 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 Respondents are directed to consider the

application of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case i.e.

F.I.R.No.134 of 2011 on the file of I Town Police Station, Ongole 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.

15. 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.