Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Golla Hanuman Gupta vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.7103 of 2023
Between:-
Golla Hanuman Gupta
.... Petitioner
And
Union of India, Rep. Secretary to
Government of India, Ministry of
External Affiars, South Block, New
Delhi and others.
.... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Y.V.Anil Kumar
G.P. for Home.
ORDER:
Heard Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and also heard Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned
counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.4.
2) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to
declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the
petitioner's explanation / representation dated 16.02.2023
submitted for renewal of passport No.K9160190, dated
16.02.2023 and not renewing the same as illegal, arbitrary
etc., and for consequential directions.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition, inter alia, submits that initially the petitioner was
holding a Passport bearing No.E6935026, issued on
28.10.2003, upon expiry of the same he was granted new
Passport bearing No.K9160190, on 20.03.2013, and since the
same is getting expired by 19.03.2023 the petitioner applied
for issuance of Passport vide File No.VJ2074885926122,
dated 20.12.2022. She further submits that consequent to
the application submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd
respondent called for an explanation from the petitioner
stating that he was involved in a Crime No.464/2018 of
Bhavanipuram P.S., Vijayawada for the offences under
Section 354(a)(i), 354(b), 370(3), 109 r/w 34 IPC and Section
34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act. Thereafter the petitioner submitted
an explanation dated 16.02.2023, stating that he was
involved in two Crimes viz., Cr.No.464 and 465 of 2018 and
he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- in Cr.No.465 of
2018 and paid the same on 04.12.2019; and in another case
cognizance has not yet been taken, as such the petitioner is
eligible for passport.
4) Relying on the judgment dated 13.09.2022, passed in
W.P.No.19895 of 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in similar circumstances a learned single Judge
of this Court directed the 3rd respondent therein to consider
the application for renewal of passport without reference to
the pendency of the crime against the petitioner therein.
Learned counsel further relying on the decisions in Danvath
Balaji Naik v Union of India1 and Kadar Valli Shaik v
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi and
Others2, submits that mere pendency of FIRs is not a bar for
renewal of passport and the law on the subject is well settled,
hence the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
5) Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, at the
time of considering the matter, submitted a copy of the case
history with respect to the pendency of the case against the
petitioner. A perusal of the same clearly show that the Crime
No.145 of 2023 is taken cognizance and the same was
2022 (6) ALT 458
2023 SCC OnLine AP 406
numbered as P.R.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned 1st
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
6) This Court has considered the submissions made by both
the learned counsel. In Danvath Balaji Naik's case referred to
supra, a learned Judge was dealing with a case where the
passport of the writ petitioner therein was impounded. While
allowing the writ petition, the learned Judge held as follows:
"7. 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.
8. 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).
9. In view of the above Principle of law, it must be held that
the petitioner is not yet facing any criminal case before a
Court and as such the provisions of Section 10 (3) (e) would
not be applicable to him. In the absence of any such provision
being applicable to the petitioner, the passport of the
petitioner cannot be impounded."
7) In the present case, admittedly, a criminal case in
Cr.No.145 of 2023, which was numbered as PRC No.15 of
2023, is pending for trial before the concerned Court.
Therefore, in the light of the decisions referred to supra, the
petitioner is required to secure appropriate order from the
concerned Criminal Court.
8) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondent-Passport Authorities to consider
the application of the petitioner for renewal of Passport on
production of appropriate orders from the Criminal Court,
where the criminal case is pending. No order as to costs.
9) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,
if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Date:29.01.2024.
Ssv
