Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Medarmetla Manju Bhargavi vs The Union Of India on 2 July, 2024

 APHC010261842024
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                                   [3329]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                       PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                           WRIT PETITION NO: 12922/2024

Between:

Medarmetla Manju Bhargavi                                             ...PETITIONER

                                         AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. L VENKATESHWAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. A RAVINDRA BABU (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 one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not renewing petitioner's Passport bearing No.L4726231 pursuant to the application vide File No.VJ2075086397523, dated 17.02.2023 on the ground of pending Criminal Case vide C.C.No.3546 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to renew petitioner's passport bearing No.L4726231, pursuant to the application dated 17.02.2023 without reference to the Criminal Case vide CC No.3546 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein obtained a passport bearing No.L4726231 on

23.09.201 and it was valid up to 22.09.2023. Before expiry of her passport on

17.02.2023, the petitioner has approached Respondent No.2 to renew her

passport as per the procedure contemplated under the Passport Act, 1967.

4. On receipt of the renewal application, Respondent No.2 has sought a

police verification report from the Station House Officer (S.H.O), Sanjeeva

Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana and on verification it was

found that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and others vide

C.C.No.3546 of 2021 registered under sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC on the

file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad,

Telangnana and accordingly S.H.O, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station,

Hyderabad gave a report to Respondent No.2. Thereafter, Respondent No.2

has issued a letter dated 30.05.2023 to the petitioner seeking clarification in

view of adverse police verification report.

5. On receipt of the letter dated 30.05.2023 from Respondent No.2, the

petitioner submitted her explanation dated 06.06.2023 informing to the

Respondent No.2 that only after police verification she came to know that a

criminal case has been registered against her and others. Immediately, the

petitioner approached III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad,

and filed an application in C.C.No.3546 of 2021 seeking for a copy of the

charge sheet. However, the concerned Court could not issue a certified copy

of the charge sheet to the petitioner as the case file in C.C No. 3546 of 2021 is

missing in the Court section.

6. 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 her

wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down

by this Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao vs. Union of India2. In view of the

settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport

8. On the otherhand, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and

2 submitted written instructions wherein it is stated that the petitioner involved

in Crime No.126 of 2006 registered under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC of

R/w. 34 IPC of Sanjeevareddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana

1978 AIR 597

2022 SCC Online AP 824 State, dated 20.02.2006 and the same is pending for Trial before the Hon'ble

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana.

9. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also relied

upon a ratio laid down by this Court in Ramarao Chinthagumpula vs. The

Union of India and others3

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

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also perused the material placed on

record.

11. It appears that in the present case, a crime was registered in the year

2006. But, the charge sheet was filed in the year 2023. It also appears that

pending criminal case, petitioner was granted Passport in the year 2013. At

present, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of passport. It is

further observed that the petitioner also submitted required application before

the Court below. But the application is not considered so far.

12. It is also observed that the petitioner also filed a discharge petition on

17.04.2023 and the same is pending for consideration before the Court below.

Therefore, the law is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well by this

Court in catena judgments. This Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs.

The Union of India and others4, it is held as follows:

W.P.No.3541 of 2024, dated 05.03.2024

W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 27.09.2021 in Crl.A.No.1342 of 2017 in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, after considering Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act had held that the passport authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal appeal and directed the passport authority to renew the passport. 6. The issue and renewal of passports is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2), extracted below, is relevant for this purpose.

(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 of 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.

7. The grounds on which, the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is being refused could, at best, fall within Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act. This provision has been considered in various cases and the ambit of this provision is fairly settled.

8. 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.

13. This Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao vs. Union of India (2 supra) held

as follows:

5. This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction 'and' makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post-conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case / cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.

7. If the present case is examined it is clear that already a passport was issued to the petitioner and on its expiry a fresh passport was reissued. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he gave reply and thereafter the passport was surrendered as evidenced by the surrender certificate. Thus, this is not a case of "impounding". If a person convicted of a crime is entitled to seek a renewal as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court does not find any reason to hold that the petitioner who is only an accused cannot hold a passport. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to immediately give back the passport bearing No. Z6412398 to the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the passport cannot be retained only on the ground that there are criminal cases pending.

14. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others 5, the High

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 affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right."

15. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

Respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner, and renew her

passport, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide

W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 C.C.No.3546 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Nampally, Hyderabad.

16. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, she shall obtain prior

permission from the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,

Hyderabad for such travel and she shall appear before the Court, whenever

her presence is required by the Court.

16. 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.