Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Pandi Bhaskara Rao vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2024

APHC010295322024
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                            [3329]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

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

                                   PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 14876/2024

Between:

Pandi Bhaskara Rao                                                ...PETITIONER

                                      AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M K RAJ KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. ALEKHYA TADASINA(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following: ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order assailing the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering my application made for renewal of my passport vide letter application (File No. No.VSO5C5079952922) dated 04.01.2023 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 Passports Act, 1967 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to renewal the passport to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order".

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner holds

a passport bearing No. H2118940, which was issued on 09.12.2008 and

was valid until 08.12.2018. After the expiry of the passport, the petitioner

filed an application for its renewal on 14.10.2022 before the 3rd

respondent. However, the 3rd respondent rejected the application on

04.01.2023 and issued a letter of objections on the same date, calling for

an explanation from the petitioner regarding the objections raised. On

receipt of this letter, the petitioner submitted his explanation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the

petitioner submitted his explanation, the 3rd respondent rejected his

application on the ground that as per the police verification report a civil

case vide O.S.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court cum VII

Additional District Judge, Eluru is pending against the petitioner. He

further submits that the respondent authorities should not refuse the

renewal of the passport on a mere ground of pendency of civil

proceedings, which is contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967.

Hence, the present Writ Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

submits that the petitioner suppressed the fact that a civil case is pending against him in his passport application. Therefore, the respondent

authorities did not renew the petitioner's passport.

1. 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.

2. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others 2 , 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."

3. 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

1978 AIR 597 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.

© 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.

4. For more understanding, Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967

is extracted hereunder:

"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.

5. The issue of renewal of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967.

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

6. 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.

On perusal of the material placed on record, this Court opines that

the respondent authorities cannot refuse the renewal of passport to the

petitioner on the ground of pendency of a civil case registered against the

petitioner. 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.

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."

8. 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 directing the respondent No.3 to

consider the application of the petitioner without referring to the civil

case/court proceedings, if any in O.S.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the

Family Court cum VII Additional District Judge, Eluru, and renew the

passport of the petitioner, if otherwise the application is in order, within a

period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is made clear that the notice issued by the 3rd respondent dated

04.01.2023 is hereby set-aside, declaring as illegal and arbitrary. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also