Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Katta Rama Devi vs The Union Of India on 8 November, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAJI^
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADlfA""
WRIT PETITION NO: 22083 OF 2024
Between:

Katta Rama Devi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao Konakanchi, aged 50 Years, R/o.
D.No.7-42, Opp Elimentry School, Satuluru, Palnadu Mandal Guntur
District.

...PETITIONER
AND

1.
The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of External
Affairs, South Block, New Delhi
2.
The Passport Authority of India, Rep by its Chief Passport Officer, PSP
Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No.8, Patiala House, Tilak
Marg, New Delhi 110 001.
3.
The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada, 4th Floor,
Stalin Central, D.No.27-37-158, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada.
NTR District.
4.
The Station House Officer, Nadendia Police Station, Nadendia,
Nadendia Mandal Guntur District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in
not considering the petitioners application made for the issuance of
passport application No. VJ2066767451124 dated 22.07.2024 being illegal
and arbitrary and contrary to the petitioners rights under Article 21 of the
%
Constitution of India and violative of provisions of the Passports Act 1967

and Passport Rules 1980 and consequently direct the respondents to issue
the passport to the petitioner forthwith.

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the 3'^^ respondent to consider the application No.
.VJ2066767451124 dated 22.07.2024 of the petitioner for issuance of the
passport pending disposal of Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. K.S.G. PADMAVATHI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO,
DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010434482024

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

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22083/2024

Between:

Katta Rama Devi ...PETITIONER

AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.K.S.G. PADMAVATHI

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

The Court made the following:
T'

2
NV,J .
% W.P.No.22083/2024

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 22083/2024

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 declaring the action of the 3^^ respondent in not considering the petitioner's application made for the issuance of passport application NO.VJ2066767451124 dated 22.07.2024 as being illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Rules 1980 and consequently direct the respondents to issue the passport to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders... "

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein is working as Anganwadi Worker in Satuluru

Village, Guntur District. As her daughter by name Konkanchi Sai Sucharitha,

is studying in the USA and for attending the graduation ceremony, she applied

for a passport vide application reference No. VJ2066767451124 dated

22.07.2024 at Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

4. While so, basing on the police verification report, the Respondent No.3

issued a notice dated 13.08.2024 to the petitioner informing that, there are

three cases pending against the petitioner and also directed for an explanation

within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice. Pursuant to

which, the petitioner approached before Respondent No.3 and submitted the

documents with regard to the pending cases.

NV,J ^ W.P.No .22083/2024 ^

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is

falsely implicated in the Crime No.91 of 2022 of Nandyala Police Station, Nandyala, Guntur District for the offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC allegedly cheated along with A1 to defacto complainant. The police

did not conduct investigation properly and filed charge sheet against her. It is

further submitted that petitioner received summons in C.C.No.452 of 2022 and

the same is challenged before Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing

quash petition in CRLP.No.8317 of 2023 and the same is pending before this Hon'ble Court. There is an interim relief to the extent that the presence of the

petitioner was dispensed with from every adjournment. With except on those dates the learned Magistrate feels the presence of the petitioner required. She

further submits that after receiving the notice from Respondent No.3, the

petitioner approached before Respondent No.3 and submitted the details in respect of FIR copy and also the C.C.No.452 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District, for which

Respondent No.3 orally directed the petitioner to get a No Objection

Certificate (NOC) from the concerned authorities / Court for issuance of

passport and otherwise they will not issue the passport.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is

having permanent residence and also working as Anganwadi Worker and her family needs her personal attention. The daughter of the petitioner is studying

in USA and she has to attend her daughter's graduation ceremony that is to

\ NV,J

be held in the month of December, 2024. Therefore, it is necessary to issue

passport to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 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 oflndia\

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 others^. In view of

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

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3

submitted that the petitioner herein had applied for passport vide application No.

VJ2066767451124 on 22.07.2024. The application has been processed under

pre-police verification basis.

10. It is further stated that as per Police Verification report, the petitioner /

applicant was arrayed as an accused in the Nandyal Police Station vide Cr.No.91

of 2022 under Section 420 read with 34 IPC and it is PT on Hon'ble ADM Court,

Chilakaluripeta vide C.C.No.452 of 2022. As the petitioner suppressed the

information about pending criminal case, the Respondents had issued a show

cause notice vide SCN/319020403/24, dated 13.08.2024. No explanation

received from the petitioner till date.

'1978 AIR 597' ^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 NV,J W.P.No.22083/2024 t

11. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submits 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).

12. It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned

Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik's Case\ the petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against her.

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

Respondents and perused the material placed on record.

14. 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 compiiance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected.

^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 • T \

NV,J

(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.

15. 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 of2020 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. "

NV,J

16. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others'*, the Higher "v

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."

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

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

NV,J W.P.No.22083/2024 •

affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right.

inclined to dispose of

17. the light of the settled legal position, this Court is In

the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the application of in in accordance with law subject the petitioner and issue passport to the petitioner, to production of schedule of Travel to abroad with Air Ticket. Further, in the absence of any schedule or 'Air' Tickets, the petitioner herein directed to obtain 'NOC' from court in C.C.No.452 of 2022 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripeta.

18. 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.

19. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

SDI- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

] (i SECTION OFFICER

To, Block

1. The Secretary , Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, South New Delhi

2. The Chief Passport Officer , Passport Authority of India, PSP Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No.8 , Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110 001. th Floor