Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kadiyala Sudhakar Naidu, vs The Union Of India on 1 October, 2024

APHC010420322024
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                 [3329]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                      WRIT PETITION NO: 21371/2024

Between:

Kadiyala Sudhakar Naidu,                                ...PETITIONER

                                  AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

  1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT

  2. GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following:
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 21371/2024

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 by declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and directing the petitioner to obtain a permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending vide letter dated 19.09.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application reference No.ARN24-1010414319 dated 04.09.2024 of the petitioner and issued passport to the petitioner without raising any objection to the criminal case in C.C.No.520 of 2014 and without insisting to obtain permission from the Court the criminal case is pending and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. Petitioner herein has applied for passport vide application reference

No.ARN24-1010414319 to the 2nd respondent on 04.09.2024. Then, the 2nd

respondent has issued a letter dated 12.09.2024 calling for clarification for

issuance of the passport to the petitioner. For which, the petitioner submitted

his explanation to the 2nd respondent on 19.09.2024. But, the 2nd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner vide letter dated 19.09.2024 on the

ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner.

4. In the year 2014, during the Municipal elections, a criminal case vide

Cr.No.57 of 2014 under Section 171(E), 188 IPC was lodged against the

petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is trying to bribe the voters by

distributing the sarees to the voters. Thereafter, the said criminal case was

numbered as C.C.No.520 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Penukonda. Thereafter, the said case was transferred to Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Puttaparthi in the year 2017. After the said transfer, the JFCM,

Puttaparthi sent a letter to the JFCM, Penukonda requesting to send the

original Mahajarnama. The said C.C.No.520 of 2024 is neither pending before

JFCM, Penukonda nor before JFCM, Puttaparthi. Hence, the petitioner cannot

make any application to obtain necessary permission under Section 6(f) of the

Passport Act.

5. Pursuant to the petitioner's explanation, Respondent No.2 issued a letter

dated 19.09.2024 stating that the petitioner has suppressed the material

information regarding pendency of criminal case in his passport Application. Then

petitioner was requested to furnish either order of Acquittal or quashment of FIR

or No Objection Certificate from the concerned Court as per Gazette Notification

GSR 570(E), dated 25.08.1993 along with an undertaking in writing to the

passport issuing authorities that he shall, if required by the Court concerned,

appear before it at any time during the continuation of the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied

for passport to visit U.S.A. for his son's convocation. He further submits that the

Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the

explanation of the petitioner and denying the issuance of the passport of the

petitioner is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under

Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

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 others2. In view of

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

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the

written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated 19.09.2024,

wherein it is stated 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

1978 AIR 597

W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 abroad and directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the

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

10. 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.

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

Respondents and also perused the material placed on record.

12. 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

13. 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 of 2020 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."

14. 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

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

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

the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the application of

the petitioner, and issue passport to him, in accordance with law, without raising

any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.520 of 2014 on the file of

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttaparthi, within two (02) weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

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

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

trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court.

17. 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.