G.Shanthi vs The Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 5147 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

G.Shanthi vs The Union Of India on 5 July, 2024

APHC010262302024
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                          AT AMARAVATI             [3329]
                                   (Special Original Jurisdiction)


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

                                         PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                           WRIT PETITION NO: 13096/2024

Between:

G.shanthi                                                              ...PETITIONER

                                            AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. VMR LEGAL

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. GP FOR HOME

     2.

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 in the form of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in issuing the passport to the petitioner pursuant to her application vide Application No.VJ1066397472324, dated 26.03.2024 under the guise of pendency of a criminal case vide FIR No.16/2023 on the file of the Renigunta Urban Police Station and in issuing notice vide SCN/317660511/24, dated 15.04.2024, without assigning any valid reasons as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, perverse, unfair, biased, preposterous, whimsical, capricious, unconscionable, unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair Play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the Respondents to issue a fresh passport with a validity of 10 years to the petitioner without reference to the said crime and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein is an Indian Citizen and with an intention to get a

passport she had made an application vide Application Reference No.24-

1003682889, dated 18.03.2024 for issuance of a fresh passport. .

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner had attended the enquiry and

he had submitted all the requisite documents. After scrutiny of the same, the

Respondent Authorities have issued an acknowledgement letter vide

Application No. VJ1066397472324, dated 26.03.2024 duly mentioning that

passport is granted from their end, subject to the police verification.

5. While so, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, when she was

awaiting the receipt of the passport, he had in turn received a Show Cause

Notice vide SCN/317660511/24, dated 15.04.2024 stating that the application

of the petitioner could not be processed due to an adverse Police Verification Report since she was arrayed as an accused in Cr.No.16 of 2023 on the file of

the Renigunta Urban Police Station. Upon enquiry, it was found out that the

said crime is under the stage of investigation and as on date no charge sheet

came to be filed in the said crime.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Central Government submits

that as per the police verification report, the applicant was arrayed as

oaccused on the file of Renigunta Urban Police Station and the case is in

under investigation.

7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel, in our view, it

is appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, as

extracted herein under:

"Section 6(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 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others 1 , 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."

14. 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."

11. 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 the notice issued by the Respondents vide Letter

Ref No.SCN/317660511/24, dated 15.04.2024 is hereby set-aside.

12. Further the Respondents are directed to consider the application of the

petitioner without referring to the criminal case and issue the passport to the petitioner, if otherwise the application is in order, within a period of three

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

13. This order shall not preclude the Respondents 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.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

5th July, 2024 Knr HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION No.13096 of 2024

5th July, 2024

Knr