Allowed

Panchakarla Pandu Ranga Rao v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Nov 2023WP/29374/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 151 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought issuance of a passport denied due to a pending criminal case. The Court held that without cognizance by a criminal court, the petitioner is not facing trial and directed the Passport Authority to consider the application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner's passport application within 4 weeks without reference to Crime No.93 of 2015.

Panchakarla Pandu Ranga Rao Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBEfd=
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
Li s..ç }s . i.r}1y _.
PRESENT ',-'
.mays •' . w'~.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 5

¶3

Between:

¶4

Panchakarla Pandu Ranga Rao, S/0 P.Subba Rao, Aged about 57 years, Rio D.No.61-9/4-5, Water Tank Road, Ramalingeswara Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶5

..PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

Union of India, Ministry of external affairs, represented by its Principal Secretary, South block, New deihi-110 001

¶8

Passport Authority of India, Represented by its Chief Passport officer, psp division, ministry of external affairs, room no.8, patiala house, tilak marg, New deihi-110 001.

¶9

Regional passport office, Represented by its, Regional passport officer, Near P.F. Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem VUDA Lay out, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530009.

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶11

The Station House officer, Machavaram Police^{Station, Vijayawada, NTR} District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under^{Article226oftheConstitutionof Indiaprayingthatinthe} circumstances^{statedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to issue^{awritpetitionorderoradirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthe}

¶14

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not issuing Passport to the petitioner as per his application No.V32065532784123 dated 04.07.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to issue Passport to the Petitione.

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thewrit petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to issue passport to the petitioner by duly considering the explanation of the Petitioner dated 07.10.2023. Counsel for the Petitioner:Mls. PILLI SUNDEEP Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: JUPUDI YAGNA DUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.29374 of 2023

¶19

Between: -

¶20

Panchakarla Pandu Ranga Rao .... Petitioner And

¶21

Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, South Block, New Delhi & Others. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Pilli Sundeep Counsel for the respondents Ms.Divya Datla, Standing Counsel for Central Government G.P. for Home

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms.Divya Datla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondents 4 and 5.

¶24

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents, more particularly respondents 1 to 3 in not issuing the Passport to the petitioner, pursuant to his application No.VJ2065532784123 dated 04.07.2023, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions.

¶25

The petitioner, a resident of Vijayawada is planning to visit his son, who is residing at United States^{ofAmericaandmadeanapplicationfor} issuance of Passport on^{04.07.2023.Hereceivedaletterfromthe} respondent No.3 on^{14.09.2023statingthatinthePoliceVerification} Report(PVR), it^{wasinformedthatthepetitionerwasinvolvedin} Criminal/Court case and^{explanationwassoughtforinthatregard.Vide} Explanation dated^{07.10.2023,thepetitionerinformedthe3} respondent

¶26

¶27

that no cases are pending^{againstthepetitioner,buttheauthorities} concerned has not taken any^{action thereafter.}

¶28

Drawing the attention of this Court to^{Ex.P4i.e.,Certificatedated} 03.07.2023 issued by the 5th^{respondent,thelearnedcounselsubmitsthat} Cr.No.93 of 2015, which was^{registeredagainstthepetitionerforthe} offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506^{of Indian Penal Code on the file} of Machavaram Police Station,^{VijayawadawasclosedasMistakeof Fact'.} When that be the situation, the^{learnedcounselsubmitsthat the action on} the part of the Passport^{AuthoritiesinnotissuingthePassportonthe} premise that a Criminal Case is pending, is not^{tenable.Further, relying on} the decision of a learned Single Judge^{ofHighCourtofMadrasin} W.P.No.20058 of 2020 dated 04.02.2021, the learned^counsel submits that mere pendency of Criminal Case would not be a bar^for issuing the Passport. He submits that due to delay in issuing the Passport, the petitioner's valuable rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India are seriously affected. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks the reliefs as prayed for.

¶29

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, while placing a copy of the written instructions dated 22.11.2023 received from the 5th respondent made his submissions. As seen from the said instructions, it would appear that after detailed investigation, Crime No.93 of 2015 registered against the petitioner was referred as `Civil in Nature' vide C.No.226/ACP-CD/VJA/2023 dated 03.05.2023, that as the

¶30

¶31

complainant is not available to serve C-Notice, the same was sent to the complainant through post and it was returned. _The said instructions also reveals that a Final Report was filed vide C.F.No.6953 of 2023 before the I ACMM Court, Vijayawada and RCS number is awaited as C-Notice was not served. He submits that as the matter is now pending before the concerned Criminal Court, the petitioner has to seek NOC from the said Court.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 made submissions supporting the contentions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 5th respondent.

¶33

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As is evident in Ex.P4 dated 03.07.2023 and as submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, it is clear that insofar as crime which was registered against the petitioner vide Cr.No.93 of 2015 is concerned, it is closed as 'Mistake of Fact'. However, the Final Report in that regard though filed before the concerned Court, RCS number was not assigned, as C-Notice i.e., Notice on complainant was not served. Due to the said reason, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be said to be facing trial before the concerned^{Court, so as} to direct him to^{approachthesaidCourtforobtainingNOC.Unlessthe} cognizance of^{anoffenceistakenbytheCriminalCourt, it cannotbesaid} that the^{petitioner is facing aCriminal trial.}

¶34

¶35

A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 dated 04.02.2021 held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court.

¶36

Further, the delay on the part of the investigating agency in obtaining RCS number for want of service of the Final Report on the complainant, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot delay or deprive the petitioner of securing his Passport.

¶37

In view of the conclusions arrived at supra, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of Passport, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, without reference to Crime No.93 of 2015 on the file of Machavaram Police Station.

¶38

With the above direction the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

Sd/- SHAIK^{MOHD. RAFT} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶41

//TRUE COPYII / A SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Principal Secretary, Union of India^{Ministry of external affairs, South} block, New deihi-110 00'1

¶44

The Chief Passport^{officer,Passport Authority of India, psp division, ministry of} external affairs, room no.8,^{patiala house, tilak marg, New delhi-1 10 001 _}

¶45

The Regional passport officer,^{Regional passport office, Near P.F. Office,} Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem^{VUDALay out,NADPost, Visakhapatnam,} Andhra Pradesh-530009.

¶46

The Commissioner of Police,Vijaya~vada City.^Vijayawada, NTR District. 5. The Station House officer, Machavaram Police^Station, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶47

One CC to SRI. PILLI SUNDEEP Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI. JUPUDI V. YAGNA DUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT] 9. Three C.D.Copies n

HIGH^COURT

22/1112023 DATED:

ORDER

WP.No.29374 of²⁰²³

DISPOSING^{OF THE WP} WITHOUT^COSTS

Panchakarla Pandu Ranga Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchakarla Pandu Ranga Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimineni Anjaneyulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Koda Polaiah Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Shaik Shaheena, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.V. Subba Raju, Son of Sri Radhakrishnam Raju, Vs Indian Bank

Manda Suri Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manda Suri Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh