Telangana High Court

Gopi Krishna Vattem vs The Union Of India on 16 February, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

          HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


               WRIT PETITION No.4017 OF 2024
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

petitioner and Mr. G.Praveen Kumar, Dy. Solicitor General

of India, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, the petitioner

herein had applied for issuance of passport vide online

application bearing No.HY1066102750923 dated 27.12.2023 to

the 2nd respondent - Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad,

along with all the requisite documents and fees prescribed, with

a request to issue the passport. On 19.01.2024 the respondent

/passport authority issued Notice dated 19.01.2024 calling upon

the petitioner to furnish certain information pertaining to the

criminal case registered against the petitioner vide C.C. No.1745

of 2022 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar

under Section 40 and 406 of IPC.

3. The petitioner further submits that, the petitioner furnished

clarifications as sought for by the respondent/passport authority

in response to the Notice dated 19.01.2024 vide letter dated

05.02.2024 and the same had been acknowledged by the 2nd

respondent/passport authority on 05.02.2024. The petitioner

made detailed representation dated 05.02.2024 seeking issuance

SN, J

of new passport to the petitioner without reference to the C.C.

No.1745 of 2022 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate,

Rajendranagar under Section 40 and 406 of IPC. But however,

there has been no response on part of the 2nd respondent.

Hence, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present

writ petition.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner that petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.

No.1745 of 2022 in Cr.No.495 of 2022 under Section 420, 406 of

IPC pending on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate,

Rajendranagar. Therefore, the petitioner sought to issue

necessary directions to the respondents for consideration of his

application for issuance of passport.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends

that, respondents cannot refuse the issuance of passport of the

petitioner on the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid

criminal case against the petitioner and the said action of the

respondents is contrary to the procedure laid down under the

Passports Act, 1967.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

6. This court opines that pendency of criminal case against

the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny issuance of Passport to

SN, J

the petitioner and the right to personal liberty would include not

only the right to travel abroad but also the right to possess a

Passport.

7. It is also relevant to note that the Respondents cannot

refuse the renewal of passport of the petitioners on the ground

of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the

petitioners and the said action of the respondents is contrary to

the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967 and also

the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of

Investigation 1.

8. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala

Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) had an occasion to examine

the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, 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 IPC and also Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)

. 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572

SN, J

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 issue the

passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to

the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C.

9. The Apex Court in another 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."

10. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India

reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, held that no person can be

deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law

enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair,

reasonable and just procedure. Para 5 of the said

judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below:

SN, J

"Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.

Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.

11. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment

dated 09.04.2019 reported in 2019 SCC online SC 2048 in

Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others it

is observed at para 5 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."

SN, J

12. Referring to the said principle and also the principles

laid down by the Apex Court in several other judgments,

considering the guidelines issued by the Union of India

from time to time, the Division Bench of High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul Vs. Union

of India reported in 2022 SCC online P & H 1176 held that

a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just,

fair and reasonable procedure.

13. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra

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

Ganni Bhaskara Rao Vs. 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 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 I 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

SN, J

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.

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.

SN, J

14. In view of the above, this Court opines that mere

pendency of criminal case is not a ground to decline issuance of

passport. Further, the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the

trial Court in concluding trial. Therefore, the petitioner herein

sought issuance of necessary directions to respondents for

consideration of the application of the petitioner for issuance of

passport. Thus, on the ground of pendency of the above criminal

case, passport cannot be denied to the petitioners.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition

is disposed of at the admission stage, directing

respondents to consider the application bearing

No.HY1066102750923 dated 27.12.2023 submitted by the

petitioner seeking to issue the new passport duly taking

into consideration the view taken by the High Courts and

Supreme Court in all the Judgments referred to and

extracted above without reference to the pendency of the

proceedings in C.C. No.1745 of 2022, subject to the

following conditions:

i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking

along with an affidavit in C.C. No.1745 of 2022,

pending on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate,

Rajendranagar, stating that he will not leave India

during pendency of the said C.C. without permission

SN, J

of the Court and that he will co-operate with trial

Court in concluding the proceedings in the said C.C.;