Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Battina Dharma Jyothi Kumar vs Union Of India on 5 July, 2024

APHC010267152024            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                        PRADESH
                                                                       [3329]
                                     AT AMARAVATI
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                  FRIDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU
                      NIMMAGADDA

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 13278/2024

Between:

Battina Dharma Jyothi Kumar,                                    ...PETITIONER

                                     AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. MEDARA SIVA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. GP FOR HOME

     2. BACHINA HANUMANTHA RAO (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.K9236021 issued on 03.01.2013 pursuant to the application vide bearing File No.VS1074890898722, dated 21.12.2022 and consequential action of the Respondent No.4 in not considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 03.05.2023, in respect of the clarification sought for the renewal of the passport vide the proceedings issued on 25.04.2023 as the same is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such order or orders which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. Petitioner herein applied for renewal of the passport bearing No.

K9236021 which was issued on 03.01.2013 by Respondent No.1 vide

application File No.VS1074890898722, dated 21.12.2022. Pursuant to

the application submitted by the petitioner, initially Respondent No.2

renewed the passport of the petitioner vide proceedings bearing No.

W8085511.

4. Later, Respondent No.2 herein had issued a letter dated 25.04.2023

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.397 of 2017 registered at Gajuwaka Police Station

and the same is pending vide C.C.No. 1010 of 2017 on the file of I

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka. Pursuant to which the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 03.05.2023 along with renewal

application to the Respondent Authorities.

5. Pursuant to the petitioner's explanation, Respondent No.2 issued a

letter dated 03.05.2024 stating that the petitioner has suppressed the

material information regarding pendency of criminal case in his passport

Application. Then petitioner was requested to furnish either order of

Acquittal or quashment of FIR or No Objection Certificate from the

concerned Court as per Gazette Notification GSR 570(E), dated 25.08.1993

along with an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authorities that

he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it at any time

during the continuation of the proceedings. It is further stated that the

petitioner arrayed as Accused no.2 in C.C.No.1010 of 2017 on the file of 1st

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka. While so, subject criminal

proceedings were challenged by the petitioner vide Criminal Petition

No.2174 of 2024 on the file of High Court, wherein this Court was pleased to

pass an order dated 28.03.2024 that the appearance of the petitioner

before the trial Court till disposal of the Criminal proceedings has been

dispensed with.

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

applied for a renewal of passport to commence the job and he expected to

join into the company as soon as possible, but not later than 15.07.2024.

He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly

Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is nothing but an

infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of

the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition.

7. 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.

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 others2. In

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

the passport

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted

the written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated

04.07.2024, wherein it is stated 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).

1978 AIR 597

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

10. 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.

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

for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record.

12. 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.

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

13. 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 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."

14. 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:

W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 "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. 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 Criminal Case vide C.C.No.1010 of 2017 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this order.

16. 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.

17. 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.