Telangana High Court

Vutukuri Ramu vs The Union Of India on 4 March, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

        HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


             WRIT PETITION No.5182 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner and also heard Mr.K.Arvind Kumar, learned

Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the

prayer as follows:

"to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 authority in issuing a notice dated 12-02-2024 and not considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 22-02-2024 in regarding with the reissuance of the passport bearing No. B-7240447, to the petitioner, action will be initiated against the petitioner, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondent No. 2 authority to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 22-02-2024, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

SN,J WP_5182_2024

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, petitioner

made an application for renewal of the passport on

19.09.2023 vide Application No.HY1075923727323 by duly

furnishing all the relevant information that was asked in the

passport renewal application form. Considering the renewal

application of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 issued a

passport bearing No.B7240447, dated 01.11.2023 to the

petitioner herein which is valid up to 31.10.2033. The

specific grievance of the petitioner is that, 2nd

respondent/Regional Passport Office has issued show cause

notice vide letter Ref. No.SCN/317043103/24, dated

12.02.2024 to the petitioner seeking to furnish certain

clarifications regarding issuance of passport facilities to

Master Ramu Vutkuri, who is the petitioner herein. The

petitioner further contends that, in response to the said show

cause notice dated 12.02.2024 issued by the 2nd

respondent/Regional Passport Office, the petitioner furnished

clarifications vide his detailed representation, dated

22.02.2024 to the 2nd respondent herein. But however,

without considering the said explanation submitted by the

petitioner on 22.02.2023, the Regional Passport Office has

SN,J WP_5182_2024

been insisting the petitioner to surrender the passport

bearing No.B-7240447, dated 01.11.2023 to the Regional

Passport Officer. The petitioner aggrieved by the action of

the 2nd respondent seeking to surrender the petitioner's

renewed passport dated 01.11.2023 which is valid upto

31.10.2033, filed the present writ petition.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on

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

S.C.No.693 of 2022 on the file of Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Nampally and the petitioner was on bail in

the said case vide Criminal MP.No.458 of 2019, dated

19.02.2019, in which no conditions were imposed about the

deposit of passport and the petitioner was falsely implicated in

the said case which is pending on the file of Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally.

5. 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 the said

SN,J WP_5182_2024

action of the respondents is contrary to the procedure laid

down under the Passports Act, 1967.

6. 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 22.02.2024,

submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice

dated 12.02.2024 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd

respondent herein, within a reasonable period.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

7. This Court under similar circumstances had been

passing orders directing the respondent-Regional

Passport Authority to consider the application of the

petitioner seeking issuance/renewal/release of

passport. This court further opines that, pendency of

criminal case against the petitioner cannot be a ground

to deny issuance of a passport or deny renewal of

passport or impound or detain a passport since the

right to personal liberty of an individual would include

SN,J WP_5182_2024

not only the right to travel abroad but also the right to

possess a Passport.

8. The 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 and also the principle laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi

Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1.

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, and

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

. 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572

SN,J WP_5182_2024

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.

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."

SN,J WP_5182_2024

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

SN,J WP_5182_2024

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:

SN,J WP_5182_2024

"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

SN,J WP_5182_2024

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 detain the

passport which was issued to the petitioner on 01.11.2023

and which is valid till 31.10.2033. Further, the petitioner is

ready to co-operate with the trial Court in concluding trial.

16. Taking into consideration the above facts and

circumstances of the case, duly considering the

SN,J WP_5182_2024

submissions of both the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondents and also the view taken by the High Courts

and Supreme Court in all the Judgments referred to and