Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nusumu Venkata Rambabu vs The Government Of India on 6 June, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT AMARAVATI

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

                       Writ PetitionNo.12232 of 2024

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India questioning the action of respondents, especially the 3rd

respondent, in issuing impugned letters in 1)

Ref.No.SCN318050443/24 dated 24.05.2024 and

2) Ref.No.SCN/317809475/24 dated 01.05.2024 in connection with

the file numbers 1) VS1076408509324 and 2) VS1076408648724

respectively for re-issuing passports to the petitioners in the place of

Passports bearing No.Z2959951 issued on 01.10.2014 which is valid

till 30.09.2024 and Z2698378 on 30.04.2014 which is valid till

29.04.2024 respectively, on the ground that the police verification

report is adverse and to declare the same as illegal and also in

violation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 and

consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to issue Passport to the

petitioners in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioners are permanent residents of Kakinada, East

Godavari District, and have been doing Crude Oil Business for the JS,J

last two decades and established a limited liability firm under the

name and style of 'NBR Exports and Imports LPP', having registered

office at D.No.1-23-35/10A, Ayodhya Nagar, Ward No.9, Diary Firm

Centre, Kakinada, East Godavari District. One Smt. Gudiwada

Sailaja, resident of Hyderabad, joined the firm as a partner with 23%

shares and entered into a Partnership Deed in the month of July

2018. As per the Partnership Deed, every partner receives monthly

salary of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 12.02.2020, Smt. Gudiwada Sailaja has

lodged a complaint with the 5th respondent and it is registered as

Crime No.11 of 2020 on the file of the Station House Officer, C.I.D.

Police Station, Amaravathi at Mangalagiri for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B read with 34 of IPC.

3. The 5th respondent has served a notice to the petitioners

under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., for which the petitioners submitted

their explanation through WhatsApp on 12.10.2021 and personally

appeared before the 6th respondent and gave their explanation.

Thereafter, the 6th respondent issued a Look Out Circular (LOC). As

such, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed

Crl.P.No.7085 of 2022 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime

No.11 of 2020. On 08.09.2022, this Court has granted an interim JS,J

stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.11 of 2020 for a period of

eight weeks, thereafter, it was extended from time to time.

4. The 1st petitioner's Passport bearing No.Z2959951 will expire

on 30.09.2024 and the 2nd petitioner's Passport bearing

No.Z2698378 will expired on 29.04.2024. As the petitioners are

business persons and the 1st petitioner is a member of the

International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) since 2006, they

made an application for re-issuance of the said Passports vide

Application Nos.VS1076408509324 and VS1076408648724.

Though appointment was fixed by the respondents on 28.03.2023,

the authorities refused to re-issue the Passport to the petitioners on

the ground that police verification is pending. The further case of the

petitioners is that it is the only crime pending against them, and

earlier, the petitioners filed W.P.No.10140 of 2024 seeking direction

to the 3rd respondent to issue a Passport to them. Pending the said

writ petition, the respondents have issued letters dated 01.05.2024

and 24.05.2024 stating that there is some adverse report in

connection with Crime No.11 of 2020 which is not a bar to

issue/renew passports. In view of the same, the said writ petition

was withdrawn seeking liberty.

JS,J

5. Heard Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Smt. Manchala Uma Devi, learned Additional Standing

Counsel for Central Government, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to

3, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for

respondent Nos.4 to 7.

6. The contentions raised by the petitioners are that the

petitioners are business persons and have been running the

business for two decades. The 1st petitioner is a member of the

International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) since 2006 and he

has to attend a conference which is scheduled to be held in the

months of June and July and this is the only crime registered against

them and this Court has granted interim stay of all further

proceedings in the crime. It is the further submission of the

petitioners that on 01.05.2024 and 24.05.2024, the 3rd respondent

has asked the petitioners to furnish supporting documents and

clarification and to produce the order of the Court regarding the

current status of the case and also an explanation for suppressing

information in the application. It is the further submission of the

petitioners that it is not a bar to renew/issue a Passport as per the

existing passport Rules and prayed to consider the application JS,J

bearing Nos.24-1003924389 and 24-1003925467 dated 28.03.2024

respectively, for renewal of Passports.

7. The relevant provision of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act,

1967, is extracted hereinunder:

Relevant provisions of issue and renewal of Passports 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;

JS,J

(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. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, has been

considered on several occasions by the Hon'ble Apex Court and

High Courts.

(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi

Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1 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.

Crl.Appeal No.1342/2017 dated 27.09.2021 JS,J

(ii) The learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in

Ahamed Fahath vs. The Regional Passport Officer2 held that

mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal

basis for denial of issuance of a regular Passport to the petitioners

and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court,

it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and

issuance or renewal of the passport would depend on no objection

being given by the concerned Court.

(iii) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in Sumit Mehta vs.

State of NCT of Delhi3 observed at para 13 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."

9. While referring to the aforesaid provisions of law, it is

submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the

Passport issuing authority is empowered to issue a Passport for a

shorter period also. The discretion conferred by the authority cannot

be interfered with. However, having regard to the above reasons,

prescription of one year period for Passport renewal, according to

W.P.No.20058 of 2020 dated 04.02.2021

2013 (15) SCC 570 JS,J

Gazette Notification, vide G.S.R.570 (E), dated 25.08.1993, cannot

be resorted to.

10. It is submitted that the petitioners have already filed

Crl.P.No.7085 of 2022 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime