Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Prathyusha Challa vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2024

APHC010395502024
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                  [3329]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                      WRIT PETITION NO: 20320/2024

Between:

Prathyusha Challa                                        ...PETITIONER

                                  AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

  1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1.

The Court made the following:
                                           2


     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 20320/2024


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 No.2 to release the petitioner's passport bearing No.Y6574476, dated 27.06.2023 forthwith, which was surrendered on 23.07.2024, without reference to the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.272/2021 (Crime No.17/2019) on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. Petitioner herein was issued passport bearing No.L2212605 and the same

is valid from 30.05.2013 to 29.05.2023. After expiry of the said passport, the

petitioner made an application to the 2nd respondent for renewal of her passport.

Then, the 2nd respondent after due enquiry has renewed the passport of the

petitioner from 27.06.2023 to 26.06.2033.

4. Due to the marital disputes between the brother of the petitioner and his

wife, petitioner's brother's wife lodged a criminal case vide Crime No.17/2019 at

Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, under Section 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C.

and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the family members of the

petitioner. In the said criminal case the petitioner was shown as accused No.4.

Thereafter, the said criminal case was numbered as C.C.No.272 of 2021 on the

file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East

Godavari District.

5. After renewal of the petitioner's passport dated 27.06.2023, the 2nd

respondent issued a notice dated 14.12.2023 directing the petitioner to submit her

explanation with regard to the criminal case within a period of 15 days. In

response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation on

04.01.2024. But without considering the said explanation, the 2nd respondent

issued a letter dated 05.07.2024 to the petitioner directing her to surrender her

passport within a period of 15 days. Having no other option, the petitioner

submitted her passport in the office of the 2nd respondent on 23.07.2024.

Thereafter, acknowledging the same, the 2nd respondent also issued a surrender

certificate dated 23.07.2024.

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

more particularly Respondent No.2 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.

7. 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.

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 letter dated 05.07.2024 was issued by Respondent

No.2 on the premise that the petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal

case and she obtained a passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact

remains that the said criminal case is not yet finalized and the same is still

pending on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Therefore, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the proceedings of Respondent No.2 directing the

petitioner to surrender the passport is contrary to the law.

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

petitioner to surrender her 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;

1978 AIR 597

(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. The issue of renewal of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967.

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

13. 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:

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

"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."

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

the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to

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

Criminal Case vide C.C.No.272 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, within two (02)

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. Further, if the petitioner intend to travel abroad, she shall obtain prior

permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the

trial Court, whenever her presence is required by the Court.

16. 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. There shall be no order as to costs.