Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sri Venkata Krishna Prathipati vs The Union Of India on 15 November, 2024

                                          ::1::


APHC010488412024
                   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: 25369/2024

Between:

Sri Venkata Krishna Prathipati                                        ...PETITIONER

                                         AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. PONNAM RAVINDRA BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. GP FOR HOME

     2. VENKATESWARLU GUNDUBOINA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:



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 by declaring the action of the respondents in not renewing the passport application filed by the applicant vide application No VJ2076564121524 dated 30.05.2024 and to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the passport renewal application bearing passport No.L5192285 in favour of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders..."

::2::

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein is working as 3rd Engineer Officer in Merchant

Navy and obtained passport No. L5192285 issued on 10.12.2013 which

was expired on 09.12.2023. The Government of India issued continuous

discharge certificate-cum-SEAFARERs identity document (CDC) on

02.04.2014 which was expired on 01.04.2024. The same has to be

renewed but without passport, the concerned authorities will not renew

the same.

4. The Petitioner applied for renewal of passport on 17.05.2024 to the

concerned passport authorities. Since a criminal case is pending against

the Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent sent a letter dt: 30.05.2024 to the

petitioner for clarification regarding issuance of passport facilities.

Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 21.06.2024 with all relevant

documents.

5. Petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities that his

application could not be processed and passport cannot be issued in view

of the pending crime.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that civil disputes

pending between the petitioner‟s mother and de-facto complainant and

petitioner was falsely implicated in the above said crime and learned

counsel further would submit that he cannot renew his continuous ::3::

discharge certificate-cum-SEAFARERs identity document (CDC) without

passport and he cannot appear for the examinations for certificate of

competency class-II conducted by Director General of Shipping,

Government of India.

7. Learned counsel further would submit that petitioner filed a petition

U/s 6(2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967 to grant "No objection for renewal of

passport" on the file of Principal Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class

Magistrate (Junior Division), Tadepalligudem. The trial Court returned the

petition copy stating that the citations submitted are not relating to this

case in hand and there is no direction in the said judgment to the lower

court to issue „NOC‟ to renew the passport of the petitioner. Again the

petitioner represented the same and returned again on 17.09.2024.

Learned counsel finally submits that if the passport is not renewed career

of the petitioner would be in trouble. Hence the writ petition.

8. 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.

9. 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

1978 AIR 597

W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 ::4::

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

passport.

10. 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 re-issue of passport No.

L5192285 vide file No.VJ2076564121524 on 17.05.2024. The file has been

processed under pre-police verification basis.

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

applicant is involved in Cr.No.425-2022 U/s 448, 354a, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC

of Nallajerla PS and it is PT on Principal Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class

Magistrate (Junior Division), Tadepalligudem vide C.C.No.85/2023. As the

petitioner suppressed the information about criminal case, the Respondents

had issued a show cause notice vide SCN/318099877/24, dated 30.05.2024

and in response to the same the Petitioner submitted his explanation dated

21.06.2024.

12. 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 ::5::

directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will

comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E).

13. 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.

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

Respondents and perused the material placed on record.

15. 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."

16. 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:-

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

"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."

17. 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."

18. 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

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

Cases vide C.C.No.85/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior

Divison), Tadepalligudem, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

19. Further, if the petitioner intend to travel abroad, he shall obtain „NOC‟

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

Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court.

20. 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::