Challa Pramod Reddy vs The Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 877 Tel

Telangana High Court

Challa Pramod Reddy vs The Union Of India on 29 February, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

              WRIT PETITION No.5332 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Mr. J.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr.Angothu Nehru, learned Standing

Counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner has approached the Court seeking

the following relief:

"to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not re- issuing/renewing petitioner's passport bearing No. L3775504 pursuant to the application vide File number HY2075890909123dated 18/10 / 2023 on the ground of pending criminal case vide Cr. No.72 of 2021 U/s 498(A) of I.P.C, which is pending trial vide CC No. 2799 /2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate At Karimnagar communicated vide objection letter with reference No. OBJ.316581975/23, dated. 23/12 / 2023 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to re-issue/renew the petitioner's

passport bearing No.L3775504 by processing the application via File number HY2075890909123dated 18.10.2023 without reference to the said criminal case and to pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice."

PERUSED THE RECORD.

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

herein had applied for re-issuance of passport bearing

No.L775504 vide online application bearing

No.HY2075890909123 dated 18.10.2023 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 23.12.2023 the respondent/passport

authority issued Notice vide letter reference

No.OBJ.316581975/23, dated 23.12.2023 called upon the

petitioner to furnish certain clarifications pertaining to the

criminal case registered against the petitioner vide C.C.

No.2799 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble Principla Junior Civil

Judge-Cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Karimnagar under

Section 498(A) of IPC.

4. The petitioner herein filed the present writ petition

challenging the above said proceedings issued by the 2nd

respondent vide reference No. OBJ.316581975/23, dated

23.12.2023 seeking clarifications pertaining to the criminal

case registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the present

Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends

that, 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.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2/passport authority submits that the petitioner

instead of furnishing his explanation to the Notice vide

reference No. OBJ.316581975/23, dated 23.12.2023, the

petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present

Writ petition.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

7. 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.

8. 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

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

Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation.

9. 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) 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.

10. 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."

11. 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.

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. 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 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.

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

pendency of criminal case is not a ground to decline renewal 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, renewal of passport cannot be denied to

the petitioner.

16. Taking into consideration the fact as born on

record that, the petitioner did not furnish any

explanation/clarifications as sought for by the

respondent passport authority, dated 23.12.2023, this

Court opines that the petitioner has to submit his

detailed explanation in pursuance to the notice, dated

23.12.2023 issued by the respondent Passport Authority

for consideration of renewal of petitioner's passport

bearing No.L377550H pursuant to the petitioner's

application dated 18.10.2023.

17. In view of the above facts and circumstances of

the case and also the submissions of learned Standing

counsel for respondents passport authority and duly

taking into consideration the view taken by the High

Courts and Supreme Court in all the Judgments

(referred to and extracted above), the writ petition is

disposed of at the admission stage directing the

petitioner herein to submit petitioner's detailed

explanation to the 2nd respondent herein in response to

the notice issued by the Regional Passport officer/2nd

respondent, dated 23.12.2023 within a period of

one(01) week from the date of receipt of the copy of

this order and thereafter the 2nd respondent is directed

to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner

in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the

law and view taken by the Apex Court and other High

Courts in the various judgments referred to and

extracted above and pass appropriate orders on

petitioner's application dated 18.10.2023 seeking

renewal of petitioner's passport bearing No.L3775504

without reference to the pendency of the proceedings in

CC.No.2799 of 2023, Cr.No.72 of 2021, within a period

of two (02) weeks thereafter, subject to the following

conditions:

i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in CC.No.2799 of 2023, Cr.No.72 of 2021, stating that he will not leave India during pendency of the said C.Cs. 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 undertaking, duly considering petitioner's explanation to be submitted in response to the notice dated 23.12.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent;

v) On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original renewed Passport before

the trial Court in CC.No.2799 of 2023, Cr.No.72 of 2021; 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: 29-02-2024 ksl.