Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chinthapalli Satish Kumar, vs Union Of India, on 19 October, 2024

crAPHC010459372024
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                  [3329]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

             SATURDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 23635/2024

Between:

Chinthapalli Satish Kumar,                                ...PETITIONER

                                  AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. JAMI MADHAVI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2.

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

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 23635/2024


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 the 3rd respondent in holding the passport of the petitioner vide No.C2765976 without considering the explanation dated 15.10.2024 given by the petitioner to show cause notice dated 04.10.2024 without passing any orders holding the passport is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to release the passport vide No.C2765976 to the petitioner forthwith and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3. The petitioner has been working as a software engineer at USA, since

2021. On 16.02.2023, the petitioner came to India to attend his brother's marriage.

While, the petitioner travelling from Hyderabad to his native place, he lost his

passport and he made a complaint through Spandana before the Station House

Officer, Vizianagaram II Town Police Station. Later, the petitioner submitted an

application for reissuance of the passport and the same was rejected on the

ground that a criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged against the petitioner by his wife. The said criminal case was numbered as C.C.No.173 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge-cum-J.F.C.M, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District. Aggrieved by the

action of the respondents, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.15032 of 2023. The

said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to issue passport to

the petitioner for one year. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the 3rd respondent

issued passport to the petitioner for a period of one year.

4. The petitioner and his wife were compromised and the said C.C. case was

listed on 10.10.2024, but on that day the Presiding Officer was on leave and the

matter was adjourned to 01.11.2024. In the meanwhile, the passport of the

petitioner was renewed on 27.09.2024 for a period of ten years i.e., till

26.09.2034. Surprisingly, the Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam issued a

show-cause notice dated 04.10.2024 to the petitioner calling for explanation about

the criminal case. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation. But without

considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent directed the

petitioner to surrender his passport. Having no other option, the petitioner

surrendered his passport to the 3rd respondent. Now, the petitioner has to present

before the United States Customs and Boarder Protection Department on

24.10.2024, if he is not present, the petitioner will lose his job.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent Authorities

more particularly Respondent No.3 is not accepting the explanation of the

petitioner and insisting for surrender 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.

6. 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 her wish as held

in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka

Gandhi vs. Union of India1.

7. Sri S.Ganesh Babu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3

submits that as per Section 6(2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and 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).

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

Respondents and also perused the material placed on record.

9. It appears that the show-cause notice dated 04.10.2024 was issued by

Respondent No.3 on the premise that the petitioner herein is involved in a

serious criminal case and he obtained a passport by suppressing the same.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of

Respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to surrender the passport is contrary

to the law.

1978 AIR 597

10. This Court opines that the Respondent Authorities cannot direct the

petitioner to surrender his passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal

case.

11. 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;

(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.

12. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others2, 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

W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this

freedom is a genuine human right."

13. 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

release the passport of the petitioner, without raising any objection relating to the

Criminal Case vide C.C.No.173 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge-cum-J.F.C.M, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, within two (02) weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. 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.

15. 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.