Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nallapati Ramchandra Prasad vs The Union Of India on 15 November, 2024

                                            ::1::


APHC010479922024
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                                         [3329]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

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

                                       PRESENT

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                         WRIT PETITION NO: 24940/2024

Between:

Nallapati Ramchandra Prasad                                               ...PETITIONER

                                           AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. GP FOR HOME

     2. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT.

The Court made the following:
ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief:

"....to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing the letter dated 11.10.2024, wherein calling for the clarifications regarding issuance of passport facilities to the petitioner in connection with the Application for reissue of passport with File No. VJ2076979096524, dt:

27.09.2024, as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and competency and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and rules thereunder and contrary to the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Letter dt: 11.10.2024 of the 4th respondent and direct the respondent ::2::

No.4 to renew/reissue the passport of the petitioner bearing No. G4989005 by forthwith and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The Petitioner made an application on 27.09.2024 to the passport

authorities with a request to reissue/renew the passport of the Petitioner

bearing No. G4989005, which was valid from 11.09.2007 to 10.09.2017, to

enable him to travel abroad towards his personal as well as business

purpose. Basing on the application of the Petitioner, the passport

authorities given reference No.24-1011864599 and fixed the appointment

on 27.09.2024 and the petitioner appeared before the 4th respondent and

submitted required documents. The Regional Passport Authorities had

given file number as File No. VJ2076979096524, dt: 27.09.2024. In view of

such application, the 4th respondent issued a letter on 11.10.2024 to the

Petitioner, wherein called for an explanation with reference to the receipt of

adverse police verification report corresponding to petitioner's application for

renewal of passport and further stated that as per the report of the police,

there are pending cases against the petitioner and for that it was informed to

submit an explanation by attaching required documents to the enquiry

officer within 30 days.

4. It is submitted that prior to above said application, previously

petitioner made an application on 19.09.2022 with a request for ::3::

renewal/reissue of passport through official website belongs to Ministry of

External Affairs. The authorities allotted file No. VJ2075102414523. The

Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada sent a letter dt: 21.03.2023, wherein it

was informed that the Petitioner involved in criminal case as per police

verification report and informed the Petitioner, to furnish a proper

explanation and documents within 30 days from the receipt of the above

said letter. Accordingly, the Petitioner gave his clarification/explanation to

the Respondent No.4. In fact the Petitioner on 19.09.2022 made an

application stating that four criminal cases are pending against him. Even

though after receiving his explanation on 31.03.2023, the respondent

authorities neither replied nor renewed the passport of the Petitioner.

5. The Petitioner further submits that he had given reply to their notice,

dt: 11.10.2024 the passport authorities kept pending of the application

without taking any action and which leads to violation of the Fundamental

Rights of the Petitioner. Hence the Writ Petition.

6. 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 of India1.

1978 AIR 597 ::4::

7. 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.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4

submitted the written instructions issued by the Respondents, wherein it is

stated that the petitioner herein had applied for renewal of passport No.

G4989005 vide file No. VJ2076979096524, dt: 27.09.2024. The file has been

processed under pre-police verification basis.

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

applicant is involved in 2 cases viz., (1) Cr.No.123/2016 U/s 188, 353, 506 r/w

34 IPC of Narasaraopeta 2 Town PS and the case is in PT vide CC

No.730/2023 and (2) Cr.No.25/2022 U/s 120b, 153a, 341, 353, 590 r/w 149 IPC

of Narasaraopeta Rural PS and the case is in PT vide CC No.898/2022 and

both cases are pending in the court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet and since the Petitioner suppressed the information about the

criminal, the Respondents had issued a show cause notice vide

SCN/319714871/24, dt: 11.10.2024.

10. 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

W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 ::5::

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).

11. 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.

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

Respondents and perused the material placed on record.

13. 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 ::6::

14. 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."

15. 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:

"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."

W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 ::7::

16. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of

the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.4 to consider the application

of the petitioner and renew/reissue the passport to the petitioner, in accordance

with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Cases viz., (1)

Cr.No.123/2016 U/s 188, 353, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Narasaraopeta 2 Town PS and

the case is in PT vide CC No.730/2023 and (2) Cr.No.25/2022 U/s 120b, 153a,

341, 353, 590 r/w 149 IPC of Narasaraopeta Rural PS which are in PT vide CC

No.898/2022 on the file of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet Court,

within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

17. Further, if the petitioner intend to travel abroad, he shall obtain NOC/prior

permission from the Court concerned by which cognizance was taken on file for

such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is

required by the Court.

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.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA,J

Dt: 15.11.2024 Krk ::8::