Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Maridi Satyavati Satyavati Manne vs The Union Of India on 15 October, 2024

APHC010426062024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI                 [3329]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

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

                                 PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 21703/2024

Between:

Maridi Satyavati @ Satyavati Manne and Others        ...PETITIONER(S)

                                  AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

  1. T V JAGGI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT

  2. GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following:
                                            2


     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                         WRIT PETITION NO: 21703/2024

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 Nos.2 and 3 in not issuing passports in pursuance to the applications bearing number 24-1009883609 and 24- 1008617415, made online and interview done on 13.08.2024 and 14.08.2024, on premise of receiving adverse inputs from the police (pendency of F.I.R No.115 of 2017, Veeravasaram P.S., West Godavari District, dated 03.07.2017), as highly illegal, arbitrary, exercise of power contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to release passports of the petitioners made vide applications bearing numbers 24-1009883609 and 24- 1008617415, forthwith without reference to the pending F.I.R stated supra, to enable the petitioners to visit their daughter in U.S.A for delivery and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioners are wife and husband.

Whileso, 2nd petitioner was issued passport bearing No.M2139770, which is

valid upto 08.09.2024. As such, the 2nd petitioner applied for renewal of the

passport. The 2nd petitioner was given appointment on 14.08.2024 for

interview. The 2nd petitioner attended the office of the 3rd respondent and he

was interviewed and informed that after police verification passport will be

issued.

3. The 1st petitioner also applied for new passport and she was called for

interview on 13.08.2024. The 1st petitioner also attended the office of the 3rd

respondent and she was interviewed and informed that after police verification

passport will be issued. On 16.08.2024, the 5th respondent went to the house

of the petitioners for police verification and informed that since crime No.115

of 2017 on the file of Veeravasaram Police Station, West Godavari District

was registered against the petitioners, No Objection certificate (NOC) cannot

be granted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the crime is

registered in the year 2017, till today the petitioners have not received any

summons from the Trial Court. As such, Section 6 or Section 10 of the

Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment

rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of

India and others.1

6. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Home furnished

written instructions, wherein it is stated that the crime case registered against

the 1st petitioner is referred as false and the R.C. number is awaited.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also placed

written instructions dated 30.09.2024, wherein it is stated that the 1st petitioner

was involved in a crime case i.e., Crime No.115 of 2017 and the R.C. number

MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022

is awaited. Further it is stated that the 1st petitioner deliberately suppressed

about the crime case. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2

also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs.

Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others2.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader

for Home and also perused the material placed on record.

9. It appears that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are under the premise that

the 1st petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal case and she applied

for passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that the said

crime was registered as Cr.No.115 of 2017 under Sections 448, 323, 506 r/w

34 of IPC and r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C at Veeravasaram Police Station and the R.C.

number is awaited. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioners is

contrary to the law.

10. For more understanding, Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is

extracted hereunder:

"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;

2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP)

(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.

11. The issue of renewal and issuing of passport is regulated by the

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

this purpose.

12. 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.

13. In NarigeRavindranath vs. The Union of India and others 3 , 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 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

15. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the

present writ petition is allowed.

16. Further the respondents are directed to consider the applications of the

petitioners without referring to the criminal case and issue/renew the

passports to the petitioners, if otherwise the applications are in order, within a

period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

17. This order shall not preclude the Respondents from taking such steps

as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioners for any other

purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand