Telangana High Court

Praveena Puttaramanna Gari vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

               WRIT PETITION No.35086 of 2023
ORDER:

Heard Mr.Divya Rai Sohni, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Nehru, learned Standing

Counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the

present writ petition reads as under:

"to pass an order to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not renewing the petitioners passport bearingNo. L8466441 on ground of pending criminal case vide FIR No. 794/2022 under Section 304(ii) IPC registered by PS Narsingi and also the PRC No. 74 of 2023 at XIII AMM Court, Rajender Nagar as illegal and arbitrary."

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

herein holds an Indian Passport vide L8466441 which is valid

upon to 14.04.2024, as the passport was nearing expiry the

petitioner herein has submitted an application for renewal of

her passport vide application No. HY3075967054523, dated

14.11.2023 by paying requisite fee and the same was not

considered by the respondent on the ground that the

SN,J WP.35086 of 2023

petitioner herein is an accused in PRC No.74 of 2023 on the

file of the XIII Addl. MM Court, Rajendrnagar, (in FIR

No.794/2022 dated 08.01.2023 under sec.304(ii) of IPC by PS

Narsingi) and after completion of investigation, the

Investigating Officer had filed charge sheet. The same was

taken on file vide PRC.No.74 of 2023 and it is pending on the

file XIII Additional MM Court at Rajendranagar, and on the

ground of pendency of the said case the request of the

petitioner for renewal of petitioner's passport is not being

considered. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of petitioner that, the petitioner herein is an accused in

PRC.No.74 of 2023 and it is pending on the file XIII Additional

MM Court at Rajendranagar. The respondents herein are not

issuing passport on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid

criminal case against the petitioner. He would further submit

that, the petitioner herein was falsely implicated in the

aforesaid crime as the petitioner is in the management of the

company and as such there is no complaint/criminal case in

her individual capacity. Further, that the petitioner is also

SN,J WP.35086 of 2023

ready to co-operate with the trial. Therefore, the petitioner

sought to issue necessary directions to the respondents for

consideration of her application to renewal of passport.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends

that, respondent 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

respondent is contrary to the procedure laid down under the

Passports Act, 1967.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

5. This court opines that pendency of criminal case against

the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny renewal 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.

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

Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of

Investigation, reported in 2020 Crl.L.J.(SC) 572 had an

occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act,

1967, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a

SN,J WP.35086 of 2023

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 renew the passport of the applicant without

raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid

criminal appeal in S.C.

SN,J WP.35086 of 2023

7. The Apex Court in another judgment reported in

2013 (15) SCC page 570 1 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

2013 (15) SCC page 570

SN,J WP.35086 of 2023

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 2 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."

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

2019 SCC online SC 2048

SN,J WP.35086 of 2023

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) 3 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-

2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP)

SN,J WP.35086 of 2023

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.

12. 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

respondent for consideration of her application for renewal of

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

criminal case, passport cannot be denied to the petitioner.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ

petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing

respondent to consider the application bearing

No.HY3075967054523 dated 14.11.2023 submitted by

the petitioner seeking to renew the passport within one

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

order duly taking into consideration the view taken by

the High Courts and Supreme Court in all the

Judgments referred to and extracted above without

SN,J WP.35086 of 2023

reference to the pendency of the proceedings in

PRC.No.74 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking

along with an affidavit in PRC.No.74 of 2023 and it

is pending on the file XIII Additional MM Court at

Rajendranagar, 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.C.;