Disposed

Immidi Subrahmanya Krishna Butchi Raju v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024WP/17458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport renewal was refused citing adverse police verification and pending criminal case C.C.No.262 of 2022. Citing precedent that mere pendency of proceedings is no ground for refusal, the Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to renew the passport within two weeks, requiring prior court permission for foreign travel.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.3 to renew petitioner's passport within two weeks without reference to C.C.No.262 of 2022; travel abroad only with prior trial Court permission.

Immidi Subrahmanya Krishna Butchi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY .THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17458 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Immidi Subrahmanya Krishna Butchi Raju, s/o Immidi Prabhakar Rao, aged about 49 years,23-2-14/1, Vempati Vari Street, Behind T.T.D Kalyana Mandapam, Kakinada, East Godavari District-533 001

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Union Of India, Rep. by its Secretary, CPV and Overseas Indian Affairs Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi

¶11

The Passport Authority of India, Rep. by its Chief Passport Officer, PSP Division, Ministry of External Affairs Room No.8, Patiala House, New Delhi 3.

¶12

The Regional Passport Office, Rep by its Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam, Near P.F. Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem, VUDA Layout, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530 007

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a. To declare the Letter Ref.No.OBJ/313889167/22 dated 10.12.2022 issued by Respondent

¶16

No.3/Regional Passport Officer _ , ^ Visakhapatnam is illegal, arbitrary and ontrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, other High Courts and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India b. Consequently direct Respondent No.3/Regional Passport Officer to renew the passport of the petitioner, without reference to pendency of the calendar case.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent Authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for renewing passport of the petitioner. without reference to C.C.No.262 of 2022 pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/S MALLAVOLU NIKITHA Counsel for the Respondent No s. 1 to 3: M/S DIVYA DATLA (CENTRAL

¶19

government COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER:

¶20

[3329]

¶21

APHC010342212024

¶22

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

¶23

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 17458/2024

¶27

Between:

¶28

Immidi Subrahmanya Krishna Butchi Raju ...PETITIONER

¶29

AND

¶30

Union Of India and Others

¶31

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

1.MALLAVOLU NIKITHA

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR HOME

¶36

2.DIVYA DATLA(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

ORDER:-

¶39

This writ petition is filed claiming the following^relief: ‘‘...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of writ of Mandamus a. To declare the Letter RefNo.OBJ/313889167/22, dated 10.12.2022 issued by Respondent No.3 / Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam is illegal, arbitrary and contrary^tothe law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, other High Courts and violative of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India;

¶40

¶41

b. Consequently direct Respondent No.3/ Regional Passport Officer to renew the passport of the petitioner, without reference to pendency of the calendar case; c. and to pass such other order or orders...”

¶42

¶43

The case of the petitioner is as follows;

¶44

The petitioner herein is carrying on business at Kakinada,^whereashis elder brother is residing in United States of America^{withhisfamily.} To attend the urgent needs of brother of the petitioner in case^ofany ill-health or otherwise, the petitioner herein applied for issuance of Passport from the Government of India and obtained Passport bearing No.K7115465, dated 14.08.2012, for a period often years, which expired^{on13.08.2022.}

¶45

for renewal of his 4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his application passport to the Respondents / Regional Passport Office,^{Visakhapatnamvide} Passport Application No.VS5074569932522, dated 08.09.2022. But, the Respondents refused to renew the passport of the petitioner^ontheground that authorities received adverse police verification report and issued Communication vide Letter Ref.No.OBJ/313889167/22, dated 10.12.2022, wherein it is stated that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and requested the petitioner to visit Regional Passport^{Office,Visakhapatnam} in person and need to furnish proper clarification along with necessary documents for further processing of application. from the 5. After receipt of the communication dated 10.12.2022 Respondents, the petitioner came to know that based^{onthecomplaintlodged} by the wife of his brother-in-law i.e. Smt. R.Savitri,^{acrimewasregistered}

¶46

• ^

¶47

against the petitioner and his brother-in-iaw vide Crime No,51 of 2019 on the file of Narsapur Town Police Station. It is further submitted that the investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and his brother-in-law for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 356, 382 r/w 34 I.P.C.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, no summons or warrant was issued against the petitioner for appearance before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, though the Calendar Case was registered Vide C.C.No.262 of 2022. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that mere pendency of calendar case by itself is not a ground to refuse or reject the request of the petitioner for renewal of passport under the Passport Act.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India''.

¶50

9- Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India and others^. In view of the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted the written instructions issued by the Respondents, wherein it is stated

¶51

1978 AIR 597 W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024

¶52

in Cr.No.51 of 2019 on the file of Narsapur that the petitioner/ applicant involved in _ Town Police Station , under Sections 498(A), 356, 382 r/w 34 I.P.C and the case IS PT vide C.C.No.262 of 2022, dated 30.06.2022.

¶53

further submits that as per the counsel for the Respondents 11. Learned ,570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, when a Ministry of External Affairs G.S.R Criminal Court, the applicant criminal case is pending against the applicant in any No Objection Certificate (NOC) from either an Acquittal Order or has to produce with GSR 570(E) undertaking. the Court below where case is pending along the applicant to travel abroad and directs Hence if the Court gives permission to the Respondents will comply the the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, order in accordance with the GSR 570(E).

¶54

light of the decision of the learned 12. It is also further contended that in the to obtain orders in Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case\ the petitioner is required Judge in from the Court beiow, where the C.C is pending against him.

¶55

and learned counsel for the 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Respondents and perused the material placed on record

¶56

the learned Judge had dealt with Vain Shaik’s Case(3 Supra) 14. In Kadar the subject and passed a detailed order, the operative portion various case law on of which reads as follows;-

¶57

direction to the respondent of writ petitioners seeking (a) The prayer passport without insisting on authorities to renew the passport ^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023

¶58

compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected, (b) A direction is issued to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial,

¶59

(c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993.

¶60

Further in W.P No,30373 of 2022. a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

¶61

'9. learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of2020 held that mere pendency^ofaFirst 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.

¶62

The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E),^dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f). ” 11. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when there is a pending proceedings before the Criminal Court after

¶63

¶64

would have to be held that as of now there Is no cognizance Is taken, it pending criminal proceeding before the Court.

¶65

The Union of India and others'^, the Higher 16. In Narige Ravindranath vs Court for the State of Telangana held as follows;

¶66

The Apex Court m the judgment reported in 2013 (15)^SCCpage State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as 570 in Sumit Mehta v under:

¶67

accused to be innocent till his guilt is "The law presumes an 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.

¶68

The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC online SC 2048 in Satish of India (UOI) and others at para 4 Chandra Verma v Union observed as under:

¶69

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, extends to private life; marriage, family and The right also humanities which can be friendship which are the basic

¶70

" W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023

¶71

¶72

affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right."

¶73

In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No,3 to renew the passport of the petitioner, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.262 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cumI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶74

Further, if the petitioner intend to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court.

¶75

However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶76