Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kusume Ramesh Babu, vs The Union Of India, on 9 August, 2024

                                   1

APHC010313932024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3329]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 15774/2024

Between:

Kusume Ramesh Babu,                                     ...PETITIONER

                                 AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. N SIVA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
      COUNSEL)

   2. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT

The Court made the following:


ORDER:

Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached the Court seeking the following

relief:

"... to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not renewing the petitioner's passport X8050101 for a period of 10 years instead contemplating to renewing it for only one year as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to renew the petitioner's passport X8050101 for a period of 10 years in accordance with Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980..."

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner herein applied for renewal of the passport bearing No.

X8050101 which was issued on 07.07.2023 by Respondent No.1.

Initially, the FIR No.280 of 2022 was pending against the petitioner

herein, the 1st respondent issued passport only for a period of 14

months i.e., from 07.07.2023 to 06.09.2024. Later, the petitioner

herein made an application to the 2nd respondent officials to renew the

passport, but till today, the 2nd respondent did not considered the

petitioner's application for renewal of passport due to pendency of

C.C.No.2853 of 2023 on the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Rajamahendravaram against the petitioner. Hence, the

writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent

No.2 in denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is nothing

but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles

19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 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 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).

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

learned Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik's Case 3 , the petitioner is

1978 AIR 597

W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024

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

required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is

pending against him.

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

counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on

record.

10. 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.

11. 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 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.

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."

12. 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:

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."

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."

13. 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.2853 of 2023 on the file of learned IV

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram,

within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. 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.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

stand closed.