Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Gadde Chalamaiah vs Union Of India on 15 November, 2024

                                           ::1::


APHC010467272024
                   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: 24027/2024

Between:

Gadde Chalamaiah                                                         ...PETITIONER

                                          AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following


ORDER:

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

"....to issue a writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in not renewing the petitioner's Passport No.K8599029 by considering his application No VJ2074979569923 dated 17.01.2023, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and in contravention of the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and the Rules made thereunder, and consequently, direct the Respondent No.3 herein to renew the Petitioner's Passport No. No.K8599029 by considering his application No VJ2074979569923 dated 17.01.2023 and to pass such other order or orders..."

::2::

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein is the passport holder vide passport

No.K8599029, which was issued on 06.12.2012 and the same was

expired on 05.12.2022. Petitioner made an application vide Ref. No.

VJ2074979569923 to the respondent No.3 seeking renewal of his

passport on 17.01.2023. Subsequent to his application for renewal, he

received a letter vide Ref. No. SCN/314456523/23, dated 17.03.2023

from the Respondent No.3 directing him to submit his explanation

pertaining to the criminal cases foisted against him within thirty days from

the date of receipt of the same.

4. The Petitioner submitted his explanation along with an undertaking

dated 04.04.2023 disclosing the details of the Calendar Case No.437 of

2019 pending before the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalli, for the offences

punishable U/s 353, 341 r/w 34 IPC.

5. Petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities that his

application could not be processed and passport cannot be renewed in

view of the pending criminal cases.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner was

not aware of the other cases pending against him, he could not state the

same in the undertaking dated 04.04.2023. The Petitioner arrayed as an ::3::

accused in C.C.No.235 of 2023 before the Court of the I Additional Junior

Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalli, for the

offences punishable U/s 143, 188, 341 r/w 149 IPC and also in FIR vide

Cr.No.154 of 2020 on the file of the Sattenapalli Town PS for the offences

punishable U/s 188, 269, 270, 341 IPC and 3 EDA.

7. Learned counsel further would submit that the criminal cases are

false and are foisted making baseless allegations. He further submits

that the Petitioner is an activist of Communist Party of India (Marxist) and

he used to conduct meetings and protests in and around of Sattenapalli,

the then Guntur District, whenever laws enacted or policies framed, which

are against to the interest of farming community as well as general public

at large.

8. Learned counsel further would submit that the petitioner filed

Crl.M.P.No. CFR 4955 of 2023 in C.C.No.437 of 2019 and C.C.No.253 of

2023, before the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Sattenapalli and the same was allotted

C.F.R.No.4955 and it was returned with an endorsement directing the

Petitioner to obtain permission from the High Court for numbering the said

petition. The daughters of the petitioner are staying in USA and the

Petitioner visited USA in the year 2019 on the invitation of his daughters.

Thereafter again they requested the petitioner to come to their place and

as such the petitioner made an application for renewal of the passport.

::4::

But the 3rd respondent kept pending for renewal on the ground that the

above said cases are pending against him. Hence the writ petition.

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

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

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

K8599029 vide application vide Ref. No. VJ2074979569923, dated

17.01.2023. The file has been processed under pre-police verification basis.

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

applicant is involved in 3 cases (1) Cr.No.29/2019 U/s 353, 341 r/w 34 IPC

vide CC No.437/2019 (2) Cr.No.27/20 U/s 143, 341, 188 r/w 149 IPC and (3)

Cr.No.154/20 U/s 188, 269, 270 341 IPC and Sec 3EDA Act of Sattenapalli

Town PS and all cases are in PT in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge

1978 AIR 597

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

Court, Sattenapalli and since the Petitioner suppressed the information about

the criminal cases except CC.No.437/2019, the Respondents had issued a

show cause notice vide SCN/314456523/23, dated 17.03.2024 and in

response to the same the Petitioner submitted his explanation/undertaking

dated 04.04.2023.

13. 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).

14. 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.

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

Respondents and perused the material placed on record.

W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 ::6::

16. 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."

17. 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."

::7::

18. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others 4 , 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."

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

of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the

application of the petitioner and renew the passport to the petitioner, in

accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal

Cases viz., (1) Cr.No.29/2019 U/s 353, 341 r/w 34 IPC vide CC No.437/2019

(2) Cr.No.27/20 U/s 143, 341, 188 r/w 149 IPC and (3) Cr.No.154/20 U/s 188,

269, 270 341 IPC and Sec 3EDA Act of Sattenapalli Town PS on the file of

Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Sattenapall, within a period of

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

W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 ::8::

20. Further, if the petitioner intend to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior

permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before