Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Siva Satyanarayana Pasumarthi vs The Union Of India on 4 July, 2024

                                           1

 APHC010278782024
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                                [3329]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                      PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 13909/2024

Between:

Siva Satyanarayana Pasumarthi                                       ...PETITIONER

                                         AND

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

The Court made the following Order:

This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:

"...may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in refusing to renew the petitioner passport bearing No: J7187578 on the ground of adverse police verification report as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to renew his above mentioned passport and pass such..."

1. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

2. Petitioner herein applied for renewal of the passport bearing No. J7187578

which was issued on 17.08.2011 by Respondent No.1.

3. Later, Respondent No.2 herein had issued a letter dated 27.06.2024

seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport as it is evident from the

police verification report that the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case

vide Cr.No.137 of 2021 registered at Vetapalem Police Station, Prakasam District

and the same is pending vide S.C.No.9/2023 on the file of 1stAdditional District

and Sessions Judge cum special Judge for Trial Offences under Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ongole.

4. Pursuant to the petitioner's renewal application dated 15.05.2024,

Respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 27.06.2024 stating that the petitioner has

suppressed the material information regarding pendency of criminal case in his

Passport Application. In the said Letter dated 27.06.2024, the petitioner was

requested to submit his explanation and the required documents to the enquiry

officer at the Vijayawada Passport Office, Vijayawada, in person within 30 working

days.

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 Courtparticularly 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.

1978 AIR 597

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

7. 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 S.C is pending against him.

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

Respondents and also perused the material placed on record.

9. 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.

10. 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:-

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

"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."

11. 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."

W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023

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."

12. 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 Sessions Case vide S.C.No.9/2023 on the file of the1st

Additional District and Sessions Judge cum special Judge for Trial Offences under

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ongole, within two (02)

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

13. Further, if the petitioner intends 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.

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