Sri Narisimha Reddy Renolla vs The Union Of India,
2024 Latest Caselaw 787 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri Narisimha Reddy Renolla vs The Union Of India, on 26 February, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

             WRIT PETITION No. 5003 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Ms. Srilekha Pujari, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar,

learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on

behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner approached this Court with the

following prayer :

" ..... to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 in renewing the passport after submission of application as per the provisions of Passport Act vide Application Form Vide ARN 23- 1010912065, dated 01/12/2023, File/Passport/ ARN Number HYF076023467723 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Passport Act and Rules made there under consequently, direct the Respondent No.2 to renew and release petitioner Passport Vide Passport No.L4709158 passport in File Application Form Vide ARN 23-1010912065, dated 01/12/2023 File/Passport/ARN Number HYF076023467723 and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

PERUSED THE RECORD.

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

holding a valid Passport issued at Hyderabad on 10.09.2013 and

it expires on 9.9.2023. The petitioner made an application for

renewal of his passport by an application form vide ARN:23-

1010912065, dated 01-12-2023 at Counter No.A1, token No. N

39, CSE: DOP 77102. Petitioner received an enquiry Notice

dated 8.1.2024 for clarification regarding issuance of passport

facilities with a reference to an adverse police verification report

received by the Passport Authority corresponding to petitioner's

application for issuance of passport, by calling the petitioner for

a clarification on petitioner's involvement in Crime No.45 of 2017

under Sections 120-b, 188, 171-E r/w. 34 IPC at Gadwal Rural

P.S. vide CC.No.476 of 2022. It is the specific case of the

petitioner that the petitioner has not suppressed that the said

criminal case is pending against the petitioner when the

petitioner made an application for renewal of passport. The said

crime was registered against the petitioner based on the

confessional statement given by the co-accused without any

discovery of the fact which is purely intentional and politically

motivated. It is further the specific case of the petitioner that

notice dated 08.01.2024 had been issued by the 2nd respondent

to the petitioner, and the petitioner had submitted a detailed

explanation dated 27.01.2024 to the 2nd respondent. However

though the 2nd respondent received the said explanation dated

27.01.2024, no action had been initiated with regard to the

request of the petitioner requesting passing of orders on the

petitioner's passport application No.ARN 231010912065, dated

01.12.2023. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd

respondent submits that the 2nd respondent may be directed to

consider the application dated 01.12.2023 duly considering

petitioner's explanation dated 27.01.2024 furnished by the

petitioner in response to the notice dated 08.01.2024. Hence,

the present Writ Petition.

4. This court opines that pendency of criminal case

against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny

issuance of Passport to 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.

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

refuse the renewal 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 and also

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

2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v.

Central Bureau of Investigation.

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

Kasturi Rangacharyulu case (cited 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)

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.

7. 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."

8. 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:

"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.

9. 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

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."

10. 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.

11. 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, 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 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."

12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off, at the

admission stage, directing respondent No.2 to consider

the explanation dated 27.01.2024, submitted by the

petitioner in response to the notice dated 08.01.2024

issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner duly

considering the law laid down in various judgments

referred to and extracted above without reference to the

pendency of the proceedings in C.C.No.476 of 2022, and

pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application dated

01.12.2023 seeking renewal of passport in accordance to

law, subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in C.C. No. 476 of 2022 stating that he will not leave India during pendency of the said C.C. without permission of the Court and that he will co-operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said C.Cs.;

ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom;

iii) The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy of aforesaid undertaking before the Respondent-

Passport Officer for renewal of his passport;

iv) The Respondent-Passport Officer shall consider the said application in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner for renewal of his passport in accordance with law, within two (02) weeks from the date of said application;

v) On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original renewed Passport before the trial Court in C.C. No. 476 of 2022 and

vi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the trial Court seeking permission to travel aboard and it is for the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

writ petition shall also stand closed.

___________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

Date: 26th, February, 2024

Skj

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION No. 5003 OF 2024

Dated : 26.02.2024

Skj