Praveen Chandra Reddy Malla vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 4060 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4060 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2023

Telangana High Court

Praveen Chandra Reddy Malla vs The Union Of India on 16 November, 2023

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

               WRIT PETITION No.31674 OF 2023


ORDER:

Heard Mr.T.Raghuram, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned counsel representing on behalf of

Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General

of India for respondents.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the

relief as follows:

"to issue a writ of certiorari or any other direction or order quashing the communication letter Ref No.SCN/315137527/23, File No.HY3075442573123, dated 26.06.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reissue passport as per law in the light of dictum noted above and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

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

had filed application dated 07.06.2023 and sought for reissuance

of passport to the petitioner. The petitioner received notice dated

26.06.2023 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad

seeking certain clarifications from the petitioner and accordingly

WP_31674_2023 SN,J

petitioner filed his reply dated 30.08.2023 clarified about the

criminal cases pending against the petitioner as sought for vide

letter of the Regional Passport Office, dated 26.06.2023 and

in spite of the said clarification submitted for reissuance of

passport bearing No.E1816198, the passport has not been issued

to the petitioner as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ

petition.

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

respondent - Passport Authority submits that the issue in the

present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this

Court dated 14.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.30602 of 2023.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

5. This Court opines that pendency of criminal case

cannot be a ground to deny issuance of Passport or

renewal of Passport and the right to personal liberty of a

citizen would include not only the right to travel abroad

but also the right to possess a Passport.

WP_31674_2023 SN,J

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 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 subjective satisfaction of anyone. The procedure

must also be just, fair and reasonable.

8. Respondent No.2 cannot deny renewal of Passport on the

ground that aforesaid Criminal Case is pending against him. It is

also relevant to note that the Apex Court in 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC)

572 in "Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau

of Investigation" had an occasion to examine the provisions of

WP_31674_2023 SN,J

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,

considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport

Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of

pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed

the Passport Authority to renew/issue the passport of the

applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency

of the aforesaid criminal case.

9. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra

Pradesh High Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in

WP_31674_2023 SN,J

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.

10. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing

the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad to consider the

petitioner's explanation dated 30.08.2023 furnished by

the petitioner in response to the letter dated 26.06.2023

WP_31674_2023 SN,J

issued by the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad to the

petitioner, within a period of two (02) weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly taking into

consideration the view taken by the Apex Court in the

various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and

pass appropriate orders pertaining to the request of the