Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Basava Ramakrishna Phanikanth, vs Union Of India, on 9 July, 2024

                                             1

 APHC010237282024
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                                     [3329]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

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

                                      PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 11926/2024

Between:

Basava Ramakrishna Phanikanth,                                           ...PETITIONER

                                         AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:

"...WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly respondents 2 and 3 in objecting for processing the petitioners Online Application dt 20.11.2023 and File No VJ5075988477123 submitted for reissue of passport and further action of respondents 2 and 3 in keeping such application On hold and thereby not issuing passport in spite of the petitioner application without deciding the same is illegal irregular violative of provisions of Passports Act 1967 and rules framed there under and Offends Articles 14 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct

the respondents to process finalize and to reissue passport in his favour"

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is a resident of Nuzvid

Town of Eluru District. Previously, the petitioner was issued Passport Bearing

No.M3201714 on 28.10.2014, which had expired by 27.10.2024. The

petitioner received a communication from the second respondent vide letter

Ref.SCN/316468575/23 dated 12.12.2023 stating that they received an

adverse Police Verification Report corresponding to the petitioner's application

for issuance of passport, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner was involved

in Crime No.63/2023 on the file of Nuzvid Town Police Station, for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C, asking the

petitioner to submit explanation and required documents to the enquiry officer

within thirty days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after receipt of the notice

dated 12.12.2023 issued by Respondent No.3, the petitioner submitted a

detailed explanation on 01.05.2024, wherein it is explained that the referred

Criminal Case is still in F.I.R stage. As such, Section 6 or Section 10 of the

Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment

rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of

India and others.1

MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022

5. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted

the written instructions furnished by Respondent No.4, wherein it is stated that

the Criminal Case which was referred in the impugned notice is in the crime

stage only and based on a report of a case in Crime No.63/2023 on the file of

Nuzvid Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 341,

447, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. It is further stated that Respondent No.4 is no way

concerned in respect of issuance of notice to the petitioner by Respondent

No.3.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that

that the said criminal case is in the crime stage only. The petitioner submitted

his explanation on 01.05.2024 and the same was received by the Respondent

Authorities. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 relied upon

a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India,

Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others2.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader

for Home and also perused the material placed on record.

8. It appears that the impugned notice was issued by Respondent No.3 on

the premise that the petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal case and

he obtained a passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that

the said crime was still in the FIR stage, and the same was registered as

2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP)

Crime No.63/2023 on the file of Nuzvid Town Police Station, for the offences

punishable under Sections 341, 447, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. Therefore, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of Respondent No.3 directing

the petitioner to surrender the passport is contrary to the law.

9. This Court opines that the Respondent Authorities cannot direct the

petitioner to surrender her passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal

case registered against the petitioner. The applicant/ petitioner herein is

involved in Crime No.63/2023 on the file of Nuzvid Town Police Station, for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C.

10. For more understanding, Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is

extracted hereunder:

"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.

11. The issue of renewal of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967.

Section 6(2) of the act, extracted below is relevant for this purpose.

12. 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.

13. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others3, 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

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

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."

14. 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 order of Respondent No.3 issued vide Letter

File No VJ5075988477123, dated 12.12.2023 is hereby set-aside.

15. Further the Respondent No.3 is directed not to insist for surrender or

withhold of the passport of the petitioner hereinafter.

16. This order shall not preclude Respondent No3 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