Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chittor Aravind vs The Union Of India on 11 September, 2024

APHC010366482024
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                       AT AMARAVATI             [3329]
                                (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           WEDNESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                                      PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
                        WRIT PETITION NO: 18676/2024
Between:
Chittor Aravind                                                     ...PETITIONER
                                         AND
The Union Of India and Others                                   ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
     1. GALLA SUDARSANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
     1. GP FOR HOME
     2. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 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 writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in rejecting the application vide order dated 03.11.2023 or renewal the petitioner's passport No.J7877486 on the ground that criminal case vide (i) SC No.82 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Srikalahasti in Crime No.196 of 2018 (ii) C.C.No.553 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi in Crime

No.156 of 2018 is pending against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 21 of the constitution of India and contrary to provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the Respondents renew the petitioner passport No.37877486 forthwith and pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein was issued the passport vide Passport

No.J78774866 on 15.09.2011 for valid period of ten years i.e. till 14.09.2021.

Whereas, the 10 years validity period of the passport is expired, then the

petitioner had approached the Respondent authorities and applied for renewal

of the passport on 23.09.2023 vide application reference

No.V11075811739523 and the same was rejected by Respondent No.2 on the

ground that a crime was filed on the file of the Hon'ble Special Judge of

Criminal Cases related to MPs & MLA's Court, at Vijayawada.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a W.P.No.30280 of 2023 before this

Court and the same was disposed of with a direction "leaving it open to the

petitioner to submit the explanation to the impugned communication dated

03.11.2023 and on receipt of the same, Respondent No.2 shall take

necessary action, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible" vide

its order dated 22.11.2023. Pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted his

explanation to Respondent No.2.

5. Pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, Respondent

No.2 Authority issued proceedings to the petitioner vide letter dated

15.07.2024 stating that the Respondent's office has been informed about the

two pending criminal cases against the petitioner. In view of the same,

certificates / acquittal orders may kindly be obtained from the same Court

where these Criminal Cases are pending.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not

committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The allegation in the

complaint is not true and foisted a false case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that mere pendency

of calendar case by itself is not a ground to refuse or reject the request of the

petitioner for renewal of passport under the Passport Act.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. On the other hand, Sri Jupudi V.K.Yagna Dutt, learned Central Government

Counsel filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3, wherein it is

stated that the petitioner had applied for re-issuance / renewal of Passport

No.J7877486 vide File No.VJ1075811739523 on 22.09.2023. The file has been

1978 AIR 597

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

processed under pre-police verification basis, as envisaged under the statutory

procedure contemplated the Passport Act, 1967. As per the police verification

report, the applicant / petitioner has involved in Cr.No.156 of 2018 under Sections

448, 323, 506, 147, 148 read with 149 IPC of Srikalahasti I Town Police Station.

This Case was pending in trail before AJCJ Court Srikalahasti vide C.C.No.559 of

2019 as accused No.3 and also involved in Cr.No.196 of 2018 under Sections

307,147, 148, 324, 109, 120 (B), read with 149 IPC of Srikalahasti I Town Police

Station, this case was pending in trail in ASJ Court, Srikalahasti vide C.C.No.82 of

2021, as accused No.5. It is further stated that as the petitioner suppressed the

information about criminal cases, the Respondent Office has issued a show cause

notice vide SCN/316125599/23, dated 03.11.2023.

11. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submits that as per the

Ministry of External Affairs' G.S.R.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).

12. 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.

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

Respondents and perused the material placed on record.

14. 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.

15. 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:-

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

"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."

16. 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."

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

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."

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

the writ petition with a direction to the Respondents to renew the passport of the

petitioner, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the

Criminal Cases vide i) C.C.No.553 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Srikalahasti, and ii) S.C.No.82 of 2021 on the file the Senior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasti, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

this order.

18. Further, the petitioner shall obtain NOC from the Court concerned,

whenever there is a proposal for travel abroad and shall appear before the trial

Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court.

19. 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