Allowed

Chittor Aravind v. the Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2024WP/18676/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed a writ petition against passport authorities who rejected a renewal application due to pending criminal cases. The Court directed the authorities to renew the passport and dismissed the argument that pendency alone justifies rejection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to renew passport within two weeks; NOC required for future travel; costs not awarded.

Chittor Aravind Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 18676 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chittor Aravind, S/o C.Dharma Rao, Aged about 35 years, R/o D.No.8-55, Kaikala Street, Kothapeta, Srikalahasthi Town, Tirupathi^District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi

¶13

The Regional Passport Office, Rep. by its Regional Passport Officer Near PF Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem VUDA Layout, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

The Regional Passport Office, Rep by its Regional Passport Officer Tirupathi, Chittoor District

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Tirupathi, O/o District Police Officer, Tirupathi District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS 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 a wnt, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in rejecting the application vide order dated 03-11-2023 for renewal the Petitioners passport No. J7877486 the ground that criminal cases vide (i) SC No. 82 of 2021 on the file of Honble Senior Civil Judge Court, Srikalahasthi in Crime No. 196 of 2018. C.C. No. 553 of 2019 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil Judge Srikalahasthi in Cr No. 156 of 2018 is

¶17

pending against the petitioner illegal, arbitrary, violation of Art 14, 21 of the Constitution contrary to provisions of Passport Act 1967 and consequently direct the respondents renew the petitioner Passport No. 37877486 forthwith.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to renew the Petitioner's Passport No. J7877486 pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI GALLA SUDARSANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI JUPUDI V. K.

¶21

YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.4; GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

APHC010366482024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3329] QMS AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶23

ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER WEDNESDAY ,THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE honourable SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 18676/2024

¶26

Between; Chittor Aravind

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

AND

¶29

The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶31

1 .GALLA SUDARSANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.GP FOR HOME YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2.JUPUD1 V K The Court made the following;

¶33

ORDER;-

¶34

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 declaring the inaction of the vide order dated Respondents in rejecting the application 03 11 2023 or renewal the petitioner’s passport No.J7877486 vide (i) SC No.82 of 2021 on on the ground that criminal case Senior Civil Judge Court, Srikalahasti in the file of Hon’ble Crime No.196 of 2018 (ii) C.C.No.553 of 2019 on the file of Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi in Crime Hon’ble Additional Junior

¶35

¶36

¶37

No. 156 of 2018 is pending against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 21 of the constitution of India and contrary to provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the Respondents renew the petitioner passport No.37877486 forthwith and pass such other^orderor orders...”

¶38

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶39

The petitioner herein was issued

¶40

The petitioner herein was issued the passport vide Passport NO.J78774866 on 15.09.2011 for valid period often years^i.e. till 14.09.2021. Whereas, the 10 years validity period of the passport is expired, then the petitioner had approached the Respondent authorities and applied for renewal of the passport on 23.09.2023 vide application reference No.V11075811739523 and the same was rejected by Respondent^No.2onthe ground that a crime was filed on the file of the Hon’ble Special Judge of Criminal Cases related to MPs & MLA’s Court, at Vijayawada.

¶41

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a W.P.No.30280 of 2023 before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction “leaving it open to the petitioner to submit the explanation to the impugned^{communication} dated 03.11.2023 and on receipt of the same. Respondent No.2 shall take necessary action, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible” vide its order dated 22.11.2023. Pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation to Respondent No.2.

¶42

Pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 Authority issued proceedings to the petitioner vide letter dated

¶43

¶44

15.07.2024 stating that the Respondent's office has^{beeninformedaboutthe} two pending criminal cases against the petitioner. In view of the same, certificates / acquittal orders may kindly be obtained^from the same Court where these Criminal Cases are pending.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The allegation in the complaint is not true and foisted a false case.

¶46

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.

¶47

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 oflndia^.

¶48

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

¶49

On the other hand, Sri Jupudi V.K.Yagna Dutt, learned^{CentralGovernment} Counsel filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had applied for re-issuance / renewal of Passport NO.J7877486 vide File No.VJI075811739523 on 22.09.2023. The file has been

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

¶53

processed under pre-police verification basis, as envisaged under the statutory procedure contemplated the Passport Act, 1967. As per the police verification report, the applicant / petitioner has involved in Cr.No.156 of 2018 under Sections 448, 323, 506, 147, 148 read with 149 IPC of Srikalahasti I Town Police Station. This Case was pending in trail before AJCJ Court Srikalahasti vide C.C.No.559 of 2019 as accused No.3 and also involved in Cr.No.196 of 2018 under Sections 307,147, 148, 324, 109, 120 (B), read with 149 IPC of Srikalahasti I Town Police Station, this case was pending in trail in ASJ Court, Srikalahasti vide C.C.No.82 of 2021, as accused No.5. It is further stated that as the petitioner suppressed the information about criminal cases, the Respondent Office has issued a show cause notice vide SCN/316125599/23, dated 03.11.2023.

¶54

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

¶55

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case{3 Supra), the learned Judge^haddealtwith various case law on the subject and passed a detailed order, the operative portion of which reads as follows;-

¶59

(a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993,^{notwithstandingthe} pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned^{fortrial,isrejected.} (b) A direction is issued to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of^{Section6(2)ofthe} Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production^oftheorder from the concerned Court where the criminal case Is pending for trial. (c) On production of an order from the concerned Court,^{asaforesaid,the} application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground^of mere pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject^{tocomplianceof} 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

¶61

follows:-

¶62

^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023

¶63

¶64

¶65

’9. A 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^{ofissuanceofa} 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^{concernedCourt.}

¶66

The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E),^dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be requiredfrom 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 cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court. ”

¶67

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

¶68

The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para^13observedas under:

¶69

"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. >As a presumable Innocent person, he is entitled^toall the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶70

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

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

¶75

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^hisfreedoms 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.

¶76

In the light of the settled legal position, this Court^is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Cases vide i) C.C.No.553 of 2019 on the file^{oftheAdditionalJuniorCivil} Judge, Srikalahasti, and ii) S.C.No.82 of 2021 on the file the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶77

Further, the petitioner shall obtain NOC from the Court concerned whenever there is a proposal for travel abroad and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court.

¶78

¶79

¶80

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.

¶81

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶82

To,

¶83

//TRUE COPY//

¶84

SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶85

/ SECTfch^ OFFICER

¶86

The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Near PF Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem VUDA Layout, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam District.

¶87