Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Potturi Pradeep Kumar Varma vs The Union Of India on 23 September, 2024

 APHC010388662024


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

      MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER
           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                 PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU
                     NIMMAGADDA

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 19831/2024

Between:

Potturi Pradeep Kumar Varma                            ...PETITIONER

                                    AND

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:

    1. A RADHAKRISHNA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

    1. GP FOR HOME

    2. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:
                                    2




     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                WRIT PETITION NO: 19831/2024


ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:

"...to issue writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent/Passport Officer in not renewing my passport bearing No.H9804412 as illegal, arbitrary and capricious against the principles of natural justice offending Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent/Regional Passport Officer to renew my passport bearing No. H9804412 for a period of ten years in the interest of justice 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.H9804412

and the same is valid from 04.06.2010 to 03.06.2020. After expiry of

the said passport, the petitioner made an application to the 2 nd

respondent for renewal of his passport. Then, the 2nd respondent

directed the petitioner to surrender his passport on the ground that

adverse remarks were received from the police. Pursuant to the

same, the petitioner herein surrendered his passport on 19.06.2020.

Accordingly, a surrender certificate dated 22.06.2020 has also been

issued to the petitioner to that effect.

4. Later, sister-in-law of the petitioner herein lodged a criminal

case vide Crime No.215/2015 at Tadepalligudem Police Station,

West Godavari District, under Section 498, 406, 323, 506 r/w 34 of

I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against

the petitioner herein and his family members and A1 being

petitioner's elder brother.

5. After investigation, the 4th respondent herein registered a crime

in Cr.No.215 of 2015 against the petitioner and his family members,

where the petitioner herein was shown as accused No.3. Thereafter,

the said criminal case was numbered as C.C.No.130 of 2020 on the

file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem and

is still pending. While so, subject criminal proceedings were

challenged by the petitioner vide Criminal Petition No.3554 of 2021

on the file of High Court, wherein this Court was pleased to grant stay

of all further proceedings in C.C.No.130 of 2020.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has applied for renewal of passport to secure better employment in

abroad. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more

particularly Respondent No.2 is not accepting the application of the

petitioner and denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner

which 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 surrender certificate dated 22.06.2020

was issued by Respondent No.2 on the premise that the

petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal case. But, the

1978 AIR 597

fact remains that the said criminal case is not yet finalized and the

same is still pending on the file of the I Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.

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

proceedings of Respondent No.2 directing to surrender the

passport of the petitioner is contrary to the law.

10. This Court opines that the Respondent Authorities cannot

direct for surrendering the passport of the petitioner 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. 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:

"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,

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

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

renew and release the passport of the petitioner, without raising any

objection relating to the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.130 of 2020 on

the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem,

West 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, 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.

16. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from