Telangana High Court

Miryala Bhoopathi Rao vs The Union Of India on 29 December, 2023

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

             WRIT PETITION No.6608 OF 2023
ORDER:

Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar,

learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. G. Sampada, learned

Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent

No.3 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer

as under:

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not renewing/reissuing the passport of the petitioner vide passport No.G7532379 issued by respondent No.2 only on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.816 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles of 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India."

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner

applied for renewal/reissue of the passport and the slot was

registered on 23.03.2023, no orders have been passed on the

application filed by the petitioner seeking renewal/reissue of

WP_6608_2023 SN,J

passport on the ground of pendency of criminal cases registered

against the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for

respondent No.3 submitted written instructions of the

Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar stating that though the

petitioner applied for renewal of his Indian Passport, after its

expiry vide File No.HY7070992420718, however basing on the

report of the Special Branch field enquiry officer who verified the

antecedents of the petitioner and informed that the petitioner

has been involved in Crime No.200/2017 for the offences under

Sections 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 (b) and 506 IPC on

the file of Karimnagar - II Town Police Station, the Regional

Passport Authorities did not grant the renewal/reissue of

passport to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd

respondent submits that upon the petitioner making a fresh

application seeking renewal/reissuance of passport the same

would be considered in accordance to law within reasonable

period.

WP_6608_2023 SN,J

6. This Court opines that Respondent No.2 cannot deny

issuance of Passport on the ground that aforesaid

Criminal Cases are pending against him. It is also relevant

to note that the Apex Court in reported in 2020

Crl.L.J.(SC)572 in "VANGALA KASTURI RANGACHARYULU

v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION" had an occasion

to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, pendency

of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can

be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the

period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date

of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and

sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.

Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is

facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was

convicted in a case for the offences under Sections - 420,

468, 471 and 477A read with 120B of the IPC and also

Section - 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Against which, an

appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The

sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The

petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way

of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore,

WP_6608_2023 SN,J

considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that

Passport Authority cannot refuse issuance of the passport

on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus,

the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issue

the passport of the applicant without raising the objection

relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case.

7. 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."

8. The Apex Court in "MENAKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF

INDIA AND ANOTHER" reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, and in

"SATISH CHANDRA VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND

OTHERS" reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 very clearly

observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of a personal

liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be

curtailed in accordance with law only and not on the

WP_6608_2023 SN,J

subjective satisfaction of anyone. The procedure must also

be just, fair and reasonable.

9. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra Pradesh

High Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in "GANNI

BHASKARA RAO v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER" at

paras 4, 5 and 6, it is observed as under:

"This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport.

This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction 'and' makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post-conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case / cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.

WP_6608_2023 SN,J

The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred to in the counter affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court."

10. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case and duly taking into

consideration the law laid down in the various Judgments

(referred to and extracted above), this Court deems it

appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the

petitioner to apply afresh seeking renewal/reissue of

WP_6608_2023 SN,J

passport of the petitioner within one (01) week from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall

be considered by the 2nd respondent duly taking into

consideration the observations in the various Judgments,

(referred to and extracted above), in accordance to law