Telangana High Court
Bochala Enoch Sandy vs Union Of India on 21 March, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.7630 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Asad Hussain, learned counsel for the
petitioner and also heard learned counsel representing
Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, Dy. Solicitor General of India,
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments
made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in
support of the present writ petition is that, the petitioner herein
had applied for issuance of passport vide online application
bearing No.HY2065430830723 to respondent No.2 along with all
the requisite documents and fees prescribed. It is further the
case of the petitioner that on 02.08.2023, the respondent No.2
issued a letter vide reference No.SCN/315410001/23, dated
02.08.2023 seeking clarification in reference to petitioner's
involvement with respect to F.I.R.No.897 of 2021 registered
against the petitioner under Sections 427, 182, 183, 184, 187,
205, 201, 279, 337 IPC read with 34 of IPC of Narsingi P.S.,
Cyberabad, and police had filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.4451
of 2021 and the same is pending on the file of XVI Additional
SN, J
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Rajender Nagar, Cyberabad in
which the petitioner herein is arrayed as Accused No.4.
It is further the case of the petitioner the petitioner that
the petitioner was unable to reply to the Notice, dated
02.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner as
the petitioner is not the main accused and had been simply
arrayed in the said case as an ancillary to the Crime, there is no
direct allegation against the petitioner. The said case is
pertaining to offences relating to Driving, wherein the
Complainant alleges only simple injury and had been recovered.
The petitioner further submits that, both the complainant
and all Accused in the C.C.No.4451 of 2021 have compromised
and have filed Joint Compromise Memo along with Joint Quash
Petition before this Hon'ble Court vide Crl.P.No.3055 of 2024 and
the Court vide its order dated 18.03.2024 was pleased to direct
recording of compromise of both parties on or before 26.03.2024
before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services
Committee and the Compromise before the Legal Services
Committee had even been recorded on 21.03.2024.
The petitioner further submits that petitioner had to travel
abroad with petitioner's family for a family function on
SN, J
22.03.2024. The petitioner herein already booked tickets to
Travel and the same had been field as material documents along
with the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present
writ petition. The petitioner on 19.03.2024 approached the office
of the 2nd respondent vide petitioner's representation dated
19.03.2024 for processing of petitioner's passport along with
information of Compromise vide Crl.P.No.3055 of 2024, citing
urgency of Travel. The 2nd respondent office informed the
petitioner that they will not be able to process the application
unless and until there is a direction from this Hon'ble Court.
Hence, the petitioner approached the Court by way of filing the
present Writ petition. Hence, the petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
contends that petitioner herein filed Joint Compromise Memo
along with Joint Quash Petition before this Hon'ble Court vide
Crl.P.No.3055 of 2024 and the Court vide its order dated
18.03.2024 was pleased to direct recording of compromise of
both parties on or before 26.03.2024 before the Secretary,
Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee and the
Compromise before the Legal Services Committee took place on
21.03.2024, therefore, the petitioner sought to issue necessary
directions to the respondent No.2 for consideration of petitioner's
SN, J
application for issuance of passport. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further contends that, respondents cannot refuse the
issuance of passport facilities to the petitioner on the ground of
the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the
petitioner and which in fact ended with a joint compromise Memo
along with Joint Quash Petition vide Crl.P.No.3055 of 2024,
dated 18.03.2024 before the Telangana High Court Legal
Services Committee on 21.03.2024 and the said action of the
respondents in refusing to issue passport services to the
petitioner is contrary to the procedure laid down under the
Passports Act, 1967.
5. The learned Counsel representing Dy. Solicitor General of
India, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits
that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the 2nd
respondent to consider the petitioner's explanation dated
19.03.2024, submitted by the petitioner in response to the
notice dated 02.08.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd
respondent herein, within a reasonable period.
PERUSED THE RECORD.
6. This court opines that pendency of criminal case
against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny
SN, J
issuance of Passport facilities to the petitioner and the
right to personal liberty of the petitioner would include
not only the right to travel abroad but also the right to
possess a Passport. In the present case the matter had
even been compromised between the parties by the
Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee on
21.03.2024.
7. It is 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
SN, J
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.
8. 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."
9. The Apex Court in Maneka 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
SN, J
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.
10. 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."
SN, J
11. 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.
12. 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 herein submits that both the
complainant and all Accused in the C.C.No.4451 of 2021 have
compromised and have filed Joint Compromise Memo along with
Joint Quash Petition before this Hon'ble Court vide Crl.P.No.3055
of 2024 and the Court vide its order dated 18.03.2024 was
pleased to direct recording of compromise of both parties on or
before 26.03.2024 before the Secretary, Telangana High Court
Legal Services Committee and the Compromise before the
Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee had even been
recorded on 21.03.2024. Therefore this Court opines that the
2nd respondent is bound to process the file of the petitioner vide
SN, J
file No. HY2065430830723 for issuance of passport duly taking
into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and other
courts in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, duly
considering petitioner's explanation dated 19.03.2024 submitted
by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 02.08.2023
issued by the 2nd respondent, in accordance to law.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and taking into
consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission
stage, directing respondent No.2 to consider the detailed
explanation furnished by the petitioner to the 2nd
respondent, dated 19.03.2024 in response to the notice
dated 02.08.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd
respondent duly taking into consideration the latest
development today i.e., on 21.03.2024, that the subject
issue had been compromised between the parties
concerned by the Telangana High Court Legal Services
Committee, and pass appropriate orders on petitioner's
application dated 02.06.2023 seeking issuance of passport
facilities vide file bearing No.HY2065430830723 within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of
this order duly taking into consideration the law laid down
SN, J
by the Supreme Court and the High Courts in all the
Judgments referred to and extracted above without
reference to the pendency of the proceedings in C.C.
No.4451 of 2021 and pass appropriate orders on
petitioner's application dated 02.06.2023 seeking
issuance of passport and duly communicate the decision
to the petitioner.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
writ petition shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
__________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 21st March, 2024
Note: Issue C.C. by today
B/o: ksl.
SN, J
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
DATED:21.03.2024
Note: Issue C.C. by today
B/o: ksl
