Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nagella Premachandra Reddy vs The Union Of India on 21 August, 2024

 APHC010352372024
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                      AT AMARAVATI                              [3329]
                               (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                         PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                           WRIT PETITION NO: 17894/2024

Between:

NagellaPremachandra Reddy                                              ...PETITIONER

                                            AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. MARELLA RADHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. GP FOR HOME

     2.

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.3 in not considering the petitioner's application made for the issuance of passport application No.VJ3066364458524, dated 16.03.2024 as being illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980 and consequently direct the Respondents to issue the passport to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein is working as Quality Analyst at AGS Health

Organization, Hyderabad. As a part of his job, he need passport to visit

foreign places and in the process, he applied for new passport vide

Application Reference No.VJ3066364458524 at Regional Passport Office,

Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

4. While so, Respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 16.03.2024 to the

petitioner and informed that, in the police verification report, it was found that

there are cases pending against the petitioner and also asked for an

explanation within 30 days of the receipt of the said notice. Pursuant to which,

the petitioner approached before Respondent No.3 on 15.04.2024 and

submitted the documents with regard to the pending case.

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

falsely implicated in the Crime No.199 of 2020 of Amadaguru Police Station,

Amadaguru, Anantapuram District for the offences 8-B-2 APPA, 34(a) APEA

read with 34 IPC allegedly possessing of liquor bottles. She further submits

that after receiving the notice from Respondent No.3, the petitioner was

verified and came to know about the pending of the charge sheet. Thereafter,

the petitioner approached before Respondent No.3 and submitted the details

in respect of FIR copy and also the C.C.No.1180 of 2023 on the file of the

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Ananthapur District, for which

Respondent No.3 orally directed the petitioner to get a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned authorities / Court for issuance of

passport and otherwise they will not issue the passport.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner

herein got an offer to travel for job purposes and in the future for further

studies passport is required. Therefore, it is necessary to issue passport to

the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 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.

8. 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

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3

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

that the petitioner herein had applied for passport vide file No.VJ3066364458524

on 15.03.2024. The file has been processed under pre-police verification basis.

10. It is further stated that as per Police Verification report, the petitioner /

applicant was cited as an accused in the Amadaguru Police Station vide

Cr.No.199 of 2020 under Sections 8-B-2, APPA, 34(a) APEA read with 34 IPC

and it is PT on Hon'ble ADM Court, Kadiri vide C.C.No.1180 of 2023. As the

1978 AIR 597

W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 petitioner suppressed the information about criminal case, the Respondents had

issued a show cause notice vide SCN/317390357/24, dated 16.03.2024. No

explanation received from the petitioner till date.

11. Learned counsel for the Respondents further 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).

12. 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.

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

Respondents and perused the material placed on record.

14. 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

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

15. 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."

16. 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

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

W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this

freedom is a genuine human right."

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

the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the application of

the petitioner and issue passport to the petitioner, in accordance with law, without

raising any objection relating to the Criminal Cases vide C.C.No.1180 of 2020 on

the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Ananthapur District, within a period

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

18. Further, if the petitioner intend 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.

19. 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.