Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Moole Venkata Ashok Reddy vs The Union Of India on 23 October, 2024

APHC010362542024

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

          WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                                      PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
                        WRIT PETITION NO: 18544/2024
Between:
Moole Venkata Ashok Reddy                                           ...PETITIONER
                                         AND
The Union Of India and Others                                   ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. KAMINI VENKATESWARLU (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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in renewing the Passport No.L6542643 issued in Petititoner's favour referring to Crime in FIR No.04/2022 on the file of Chinnachowk Urban Police Station, chinnachowk, Kadapa, YSR District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w, Section (3)(r)(s) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 and a Charge Sheet has been filed in S.C.No.13/2023 on the file of the Hon'ble IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa for the said offence as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and the well-established legal principles laid down by this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to renew the Passport No.L6542643 issued in petitioner's favour for a further period of 10 years without referring to the crime in FIR No.04/2022 on the file of Chinnachowk Urban Police Station, Chinnachowk, Kadapa, YSR District or S.C.No.13/2023 on the file of the Hon'ble IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa and pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein is a permanent resident of Rajareddy Street,

Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District and was issued a passport bearing

No.L6542643 on 12.12.2013 for a period of ten years. As the passport issued

in favour of the petitioner is going to expire on 11.12.2023, he submitted an

application dated 11.11.2023 before the Respondent Authorities seeking for

renewal of the passport. Thereafter, as per the appointment fixed by

Respondent No.2, the petitioner attended for enquiry and produced all the

relevant documents for renewal of the passport.

4. While so, the petitioner has received a letter dated 13.12.2023 from the

Respondent Authorities, wherein it is stated that on police verification, it has

found that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in Crime Vide

F.I.R.No.04 of 2022 on the file of Chinnachowk Urban Police Station,

Chinnachowk, Kadapa, Y.S.R.Kadapa District registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 324, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 read with 3(1)(r)(s) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 and called upon the petitioner to furnish clearance proofs or No Objection Certificate (NOC) to travel abroad from the

competent Court i.e. S.C.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble IV

Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Further, directed the petitioner to submit

explanation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter dated

13.12.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the some

differences that arose between the petitioner's cousin i.e. Ms.T. Lakshmi Devi

and her vendor i.e. Ms. D. Rajeswari, a false case was registered by the

Vendor i.e. Ms. D. Rajeswari against Ms. T. Lakshmi Devi and three others

including petitioner. He further submits that action of Respondent No.2 in

keeping the application submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal of

passport referring to the crime against the petitioner is highly illegal and

contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. He further submits that

the issue as to whether the renewal of Passport can be rejected referring to

the pendency of criminal proceedings either at the stage of crime or after

taking cognizance is no longer res integra as this Hon'ble Court and the

Hon'ble Apex Court concurrently held time and again that the renewal of the

Passport cannot be withheld or rejected referring to the pendency of the

criminal proceedings. Hence the writ petition.

6. 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.

7. 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 others 2. In view of

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

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a

counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3, wherein it is stated that the

Respondents never deny the recognition of Fundamental Rights guaranteed

under the Constitution of India but being a statutory authority cannot bypass or

over-look the procedural mandate envisaged in the Passport Act, 1967.

9. It is further stated that, it is a judicial fact that every citizen of the country

shall strictly adhere to the process of Law and none can claim any

exception/privilege. The applicant/writ petitioner being negligent in obeying the

judicial process, intentionally did not mention about the pendency of criminal

proceedings, which are within his own knowledge. This by itself becomes a

judicial notice about the fair conduct/approach of the writ petitioner and in the

event of any non- advertence, in respect of the pending criminal proceedings, the

first sufferer would be the complainant before the Hon'ble Trial Court and thus the

writ petitioner ought to have make the complainant as a party to the instant writ

petition. Hence, the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and

accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

1978 AIR 597

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

10. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that as per the External

Affairs 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).

11. 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.

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

Respondents and perused the material placed on record.

13. 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

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

14. 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 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."

15. 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

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."

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

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

the writ petition with a direction to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the case

of the petitioner and renew the passport of the petitioner, in accordance with law,

without raising any objection relating to the Crime registered vide F.I.R.No.04 of

2022 on the file of Chinnachowk Urban Police Station, Chinnachowk, Kadapa,

Y.S.R. Kadapa District or Criminal Case vide S.C.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the

Hon'ble IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, within a period of two (02) weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

17. 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.