Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Suresh Anala vs Union Of India on 3 October, 2024

APHC010421432024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3329]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

             THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                               PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU
                      NIMMAGADDA

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 21663/2024

Between:

Suresh Anala                                        ...PETITIONER

                                 AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. KALE VIJAYA RAJU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1.

The Court made the following:
                                      2


ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or

direction, more particularly, one in the nature of

Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of

Respondent No.3 Regional Passport Officer,

Visakhapatnam in not renewing the passport of

the petitioner passport bearing No. K2598547

pursuant to the petitioner application vide File

No. VJ107442333794453 as illegal, arbitrary and

contrary to the law laid down by the Honble

Apex Court, other High Courts and violative of

Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India

and Consequently to direct Respondent

No.3/Regional Passport Officer to renew the

passport of the petitioner, without reference to

pendency of the calendar cases or criminal

cases before various courts, and Pass..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein was holding a valid Passport

bearing No.K2598547 issued on 24.05.2012 which is valid up to

23.05.2022. After expiry of the passport, the petitioner filed an

application for renewal of the passport to the Respondent

Authorities vide Application No.VJ107442333794453, dated

21.07.2022. Then, Respondent No.3 vide letter in

Ref.No.SCN/314052315/23, dated 06.01.2023 sought

clarification from the petitioner for issuing the renewal passport

on the ground that adverse police report has been received on

investigation, as the petitioner was involved in a criminal

proceedings vide Crime No.56 of 2019 under Sections 147,

148, 447, 324 read with 149 IPC on the file of Nandalur Police

Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

right to travel is indeed a fundamental right and it cannot be

deprived off under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents

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 GSR570(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).

6. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel,

in our view, it is appropriate to look into the relevant provisions

of the Passport Act,1967, as extracted herein under:

"Section 6(2):Subject to the other provisions of this

Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a

passport or travel document for visiting any foreign

country under clause (c) of sub- section (2) of section

5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on

no other ground, namely:--

(a) That the applicant is not a citizen of India;

(b) That the applicant may, or is likely to, engage

outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty

and integrity of India;

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may,

or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India

may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of

India with any foreign country; (e)that the applicant

has, at any time during the period of five years

immediately preceding the date of his application,

been convicted by a court in India for any offence

involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect

thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to

have been committed by the applicant are pending

before a criminal court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a

warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued

by a court under any law for the time being in force or

that an order prohibiting the departure from India of

the applicant has been made by any such court;

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not

reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection

with such repatriation

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the

issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant

will not be in the public interest.

7. The issue of passport is regulated by the Passport Act,

1967.Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this

purpose.

8. It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom

to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic

human right of great significance.

9. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and

others1, 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."

14. 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

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

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."