Telangana High Court

Mr. T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy vs Union Of India on 26 March, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

           WRIT PETITION NO. 7803 OF 2024
ORDER:

Heard Mr. P. Gautham Rao, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T.

Naveen, learned counsel representing Mr.Gadi Praveen

Kumar, Deputy Solicitor general of India, appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

"...to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No 2 in refusing to renew the petitioner's passport bearing no W3070592 pursuant to application for renewal vide file No. HYD076353031324 dated 13.03.2024 on the ground of pending criminal cases as being illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act 1967 and consequently direct Respondent No.2 to renew the petitioner's passport bearing No. W3070592 for a period of ten 10 years without reference to the criminal cases and to pass such other and further reliefs and orders as

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

this Honble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity".

3. The case of the petitioner as per the averments

made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the

petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition in

brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner is the former director and promoter of

Deccan Chronical Holding Ltd (DCHL). The petitioner herein is

the bearer of passport having reference no. W3070592 which

was issued on 22.07.2022 and expires on 21.07.2024.In and

around 2011, DCHL faced financial hurdles due to which it

became increasingly difficult for DCHL to repay various loan

installments within the stipulated time period despite

numerous efforts to repay the loan and the creditors filed

false and frivolous litigations against DCHL and this promoter,

including the petitioner.

b) During the pendency of the cases, the Petitioner's

passport having reference no. Z1926223, which expired on

08.09.2021, was renewed from 22.07.2022 to 21.07.2024,

pursuant to directions of the XXI ACMM cum Spl. Sessions

Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.1 of 2018. Thereafter, the

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

Petitioner applied for renewal of passport bearing

no. W3070592 vide file no. HYD076353031324 dated

13.03.2024 for a period of 10 years.

c) However, the 2nd respondent issued a letter dated

13.03.2024 bearing reference no. OBJ/317349267/24

directing the Petitioner to furnish details of the pending cases

and the Petitioner through reply letter dated 13.03.2024

furnished the required information and requested the 2nd

Respondent to renew the passport. Despite petitioner

furnishing the information as requested by the 2nd

respondent, the Petitioner's application for renewal was

refused vide letter dated 13.03.2024 on the ground of

pending criminal cases registered against the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

d) The petitioner specifically averred at Para Nos. I, J

and K of the writ petition as follows:

"I. The Petitioner has wide-ranging business interests which requires the Petitioner to travel abroad frequently, and the short validity of the passport causes undue burden necessitating multiple judicial proceedings.

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

J. The Petitioner's youngest daughter has been residing in the United States of America for the past 15 years, and being a senior citizen at 62 years, the Petitioner would like to spend quality family time with her. In addition, the Petitioner has not been able to fulfill the Petitioner's societal obligations to the Petitioner's extended family and friends in their time of celebration or need.

K. The Petitioner's wife was recently diagnosed with cysts/tumours in her mammography and underwent surgical procedures to remove the same and the Petitioner would like to obtain expert advice from doctors in the United States".

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

petitioner submits that there cannot be denial of renewal of

passport by the passport authority and further in view of the

specific averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed

in support of the present writ petition (referred to and

extracted above) the petitioner is entitled for renewal of

passport for a period of ten years.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that pendency of

criminal cases against the petitioner should not lead to denial

of passport facilities to the petitioner and further that

petitioner's passport should be renewed for a period of ten

years.

6. This Court opines that pendency of criminal cases

should not be a ground to deny passport facilities to an

individual or to hold a passport. Since petitioner's

personal Right to liberty includes not only petitioner's

right to travel abroad but also petitioner's right to hold

a passport.

7. 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".

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

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

Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu's 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

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

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 "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 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

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

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 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."

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

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

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, 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 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

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

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."

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

14. This Court earlier had an occasion to consider the

Gazette Notification issued by the Central Government

vide GSR No.570 (E) dated 25.08.1993 wherein

instructions were issued to renew the passport only for

a period of one year, in case where criminal cases are

pending, if no time frame is mentioned by the Courts.

This Hon'ble Court, while interpreting the provisions of

the said Gazette Notification and Rule 12 of Passport

Rules 1980, has held that Passports shall be renewed

for a period of ten years in accordance with Rule 12 of

the Passport Rules, 1980. The relevant portion of the

order dated 18.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.11674 of

2022 in particular paras 7, 8, 9 and 10, read as under:

"7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that where there is criminal case pending against an Indian citizen who is seeking issuance or renewal of passport, the Government of India Notification in GSR 570(E) dt.25.08.1993 is applicable. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached the criminal Court by filing Crl.M.P.No.234 of 2020 and the criminal Court has allowed the Crl.M.P. by directing renewal of passport only for the period the petitioner is eligible. As per the

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

Passport Act and the Rules framed thereunder, a citizen is entitled for issuance of an ordinary passport for a period of 10 years and thereafter, the passport holder will have to make appropriate application for renewal of the passport which is again extendable for a further period of 10 years. The Sessions Judge in the order dt.27.10.2020 has observed that pendency of criminal case against W.P.No.11674 of 2022 7 the petitioner cannot be a ground for denying his right to renew his passport. However, it is observed that it should be given only for the period he is eligible. (emphasis supplied by this Court). The usage of word 'eligible connotes that the extension may be for regular period of 10 years as provided in the rules. The judgments on which the petitioner has placed reliance upon are on similar set of facts.

8. In all of those cases, the petitioners therein were frequent travellers and the relevant criminal Court therein had directed for renewal of passport in accordance with the prescribed Rules. As the prescribed Rules permit issuance of passport for 10 years, the Courts have held in favour of the petitioners therein. Therefore, in the case before this Court, as the language used by the Magistrate/Judge is 'eligible', the petitioner is also eligible to be issued passport for a period of 10 years.

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

9. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to issue the passport for a period of 10 years under Section 10 of the Passports Act.

10. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs."

Similar view had been taken by this Court vide its

order dated 10.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.17965 of

2023.

15. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the

Judgment dated 13.03.2014, reported in 2014 SCC

OnLine Bom 356 in "Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of

India", observed at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7, as under:

"6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue.

7. In the present case, the Respondents contended that the order of the learned Magistrate did not specify the period for which the passport is issued and in the light of Notification dated 23rd August, 1993 (Annexure "6" to the petition), the passport of the citizen against

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

whom the proceedings are pending in the criminal court in India, shall be issued for a period specified by the court and if no period is specified, the passport shall be renewed for a period of one year. This court held that interpretation of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20th September, 2006 is contrary to the express language of the order. When the order speaks about renewal of the passport in terms of the Passport Rules, reference must be made to Rule 12 alone and the Passport Officer was bound to issue the passport either for a period of 10 years or for a period of 20 years as the case may be in his discretion. The Passport Officer could not have at any rate renewed the passport for a period less than 10 years. Accordingly, the Rule was made absolute and the Regional Passport Officer was directed to issue the passport, renewed for a period of 10 years or 20 years."

16. Another Judgment dated 30.11.2016 of the

Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in 2016

SCC OnLine Bom 14539 : (2020) 3 AIR Bom R 459 in

Mr. Samip Nitin Ranjani v. Union of India and others,

observed at relevant paragraphs 3 and 4, as under:

"3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Passport Authorities, instead of renewing the passport for a period of 10 years as provided under the

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, has renewed the passport only for a period of one year. Challenging the same, writ was filed.

4. In our view, the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Ambwani (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Division Bench of this Court has issued guidelines which are to be followed by the Respondents on the receipt of application for renewal of passport. It is observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:

"10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate's court has directed that the passport may be renewed as per the "Rules".

11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions:-

(a) In all cases where the Magistrate's court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for at least ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants at least for ten years.

(b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the additional booklet to the same passport provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad.

(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the passport shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned."

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

17. A bare perusal of the order impugned dated

13.03.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent to the

petitioner only indicates that pending cases against the

petitioner is the only ground to refuse passport

services to the petitioner under Section 5(2)(c) of the

Passports Act, 1967, to be read with Section 6(2)(f)

and the said plea of the 2nd respondent is not only

arbitrary, but totally unreasonable in the light of the

discussion and reasoning arrived at as above, and

hence, the said plea putforth vide order impugned

dated 13.03.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is

unsustainable and hence, rejected.

18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case, and duly considering the law

laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in

the various Judgments (referred to and extracted

above),

1. Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v Central Bureau of Investigation repoted in 2020 Crl.L.J (SC) 572.

2. Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2013 (15) SCC 570.

3. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India reported in 1978(1) SCC 248.

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

4. Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India and others reported in 2019 SCC online SC 2048.

5. Noor Paul v Union of India reported in 2022 SCC online P&H 1176.

6. Ganni Bhaskara Rao v Union of India and another reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP).

the order impugned dated 13.03.2024 issued to the

petitioner is set aside and the 2nd respondent is

directed to consider the petitioner's application for

renewal of passport bearing No. W3070592 vide File

No.HYD076353031324 dated 13.03.2024, duly taking

into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court

and the other High Courts in the various Judgments

referred to and extracted above, within three (03)

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and

pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application

dated 13.03.2024 for re-issuance of passport with File

NumberHYD076353031324, for a period of ten years,

under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under

Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980, without reference to

the Criminal Proceedings pending against the petitioner

in(1) CC. No. 623 of 2015 on the file of XIV ACMM,

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

Hyderabad, (2) 1052/PW/2016, on the file of ACMM,3rd

Court Esplanade, Mumbai, (3) 1 of 2018 on the file of

XXI ACMM Cum Spl. Sessions Court, Hyderabad,

(4)28245/2015, on the file of XVII ACMM, Hyderabad,

(5)SEBI Spl. Case No. 71 of 2016 on the file of

CourtNo.22, City Civil & Session Court, Greater Mumbai,

(6)1300507/2017 on the file of XII ACMM Cum Spl.

Sessions Court Hyderabad, (7)2200001/2018 on the

file of XXI ACMM Cum Spl. Sessions Court Hyderabad,

(8) 2200045/2018 on the file of XXI ACMM Cum Spl.

Sessions Court, Hyderabad and (9) 1161/2019 on the

file of XXI ACMM cum Spl. Sessions Court, Hyderabad,

subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along

with an affidavit in the above cases, stating that he

will not leave India during pendency of thesaid case

without permission of the Court and that he will co-

operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings

in the said case.

WP_7803_2024 SN,J

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

application dated 13.03.2024 of the petitioner

seeking re-issuance of passport bearing No.