Anantha Raju Goud vs The Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 918 Tel

Telangana High Court

Anantha Raju Goud vs The Union Of India on 4 March, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


              WRIT PETITION No.5693 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Kummathi Venkatesulu, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard

learned Dy. Solicitor General of India, appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the

prayer as follows:

"to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in not renewing the petitioner's pass port for a period of 10 years which is highly illegal, arbitrary and it is also against the Article 21 of the Constitution India and also against the judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. central Bureau of investigation and other judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also against the spirit and object of the Writ Petition No. 34208 of 2023 (dated 20-12-2023) of the High Court of T.S., consequently, direct the 3rd Respondent to forthwith renew the petitioner's Passport No. H.8627082 for a period of 10 years without raising any objection to the pending of the Cr. No.88/2015 registered under sections 504,506 IPC and Sec. 3 (1)

(x) POA SC/ST at Marriguda P.S. of Nalgonda District in SC NO. 189 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble SPL.

Sessions Judge for SC/STs cum II Addl District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

SN,J WP_5693_2024

3. The case of the petitioner in brief:

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the

petitioner is having valid passport bearing No.H8627082 and

it was renewed for the period from 30.03.2010 to 29.03.2020

and the same has to be renewed for a further period of 10

years from 29.03.2020. However, respondent No.3 placing

reliance upon the police verification report dated 15.07.2022,

called the petitioner vide letter 30.07.2022 to submit his

explanation with regard to pendency of criminal case in

S.C.No.189 of 2017, on the file of the Spl. Sessions Judge for

SC/STs cum II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

District. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached

this Court by filing the present writ petition. Hence, the

petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that the respondents are not renewing petitioner's

passport on the ground of pendency of S.C.No.189 of 2017,

on the file of the Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/STs cum II Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District, for the

offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC.

SN,J WP_5693_2024

4. Learned counsel representing Dy. Solicitor General of

India, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 brings to

the notice of this Court that the petitioner failed to submit the

clarification as called for by the Officer of the Regional

Passport Office, Hyderabad vide letter dated 30.07.2022 and

upon the petitioner furnishing explanation to the clarifications

as sought for vide notice issued by respondent No.3 dated

30.07.2022, the application of the petitioner pertaining to

renewal of petitioner passport No. H8627082 for a period of

10 years, would be considered in accordance to law by

Passport Authority.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that,

respondents cannot refuse the renewal of passport and deny

passport facilities to 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.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

6. This Court under similar circumstances had been

passing orders directing the respondent-Regional

SN,J WP_5693_2024

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

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

possess a Passport.

7. 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.

8. 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,

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

SN,J WP_5693_2024

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 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_5693_2024

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 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

SN,J WP_5693_2024

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 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."

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

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

SN,J WP_5693_2024

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, 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

SN,J WP_5693_2024

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.

14. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the

Judgment dated 13.03.2014, reported in 2014 SCC

SN,J WP_5693_2024

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 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

SN,J WP_5693_2024

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."

15. 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 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

SN,J WP_5693_2024

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 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.

SN,J WP_5693_2024

(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."

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

pendency of criminal case is not a ground to refuse renewal of

passport which was issued to the petitioner for a period ten

years from 30.03.2010 to 29.03.2020. Further, the petitioner

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

Therefore, the petitioner herein sought release of passport by

issuing necessary directions to respondent for consideration of

the present application filed by the petitioner seeking renewal

of petitioner's passport No.48627082 for a period of ten (10)

years without reference to criminal case registered and

pending against the petitioner.

SN,J WP_5693_2024

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

pendency of criminal case is not a ground to decline renewal

of passport of the petitioner which was earlier issued for a

period of ten years i.e., from 30.03.2010 to 29.03.2020 and

further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the

trial Court in concluding trial, hence on the ground of

pendency of the above criminal case, renewal of passport

cannot be denied by the respondent no.3 herein.

18. Taking into consideration the above facts and

circumstances of the case, 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 extracted above, the Writ

petition is disposed directing the petitioner to submit

petitioner's explanation to the notice dated 30.07.2022 issued

by respondent No.3 herein to the petitioner within a period of

two(02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the

order and upon 3rd respondent receiving the explanation

submitted by the petitioner in response to the Notice dated

SN,J WP_5693_2024

30.07.2022, the 3rd respondent herein is directed to consider

the said explanation to be furnished by the petitioner, in

accordance to law duly taking into consideration the law laid

down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in the various

judgments referred to and extracted above, and pass

appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks

thereafter, on petitioner's application dated 15.07.2022

seeking renewal of petitioner's passport bearing

No.H.8627082 for a period of ten (10) years duly taking into

consideration the Judgment of this Court passed in

W.P.No.34208 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 which was earlier

filed by the petitioner herein without reference to the

pendency of the Criminal Case against the petitioner in SC No.

189 of 2017 on the file of SPL. Sessions Judge for SC/STs cum

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District.

However, 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 4th March, 2024 ksl