Allowed

Kantipudi Venkata Avinash v. the Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2024WP/26914/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport renewal was withheld due to a pending FIR against the applicant under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 468 r/w 34 IPC. Relying on precedent on the right to travel abroad, the High Court directed respondents to consider and renew the passport without reference to the pending criminal case.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to renew the passport within three weeks without referring to FIR No.294 of 2018, if application otherwise in order; no costs.

Kantipudi Venkata Avinash Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

<br>

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 26914 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Satyanatyana, aged about 36 years, 5300^3^^^'^^’ Royale. Seethamadhara, Visakhapatnam^Urban

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Ministry of External Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary

¶11

New Delhi.

¶12

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Botcha 39-6-71, Kapparada Village, Opposite Birla Junction,

¶13

Murah Nagar, Visakhapatnam - 530007.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Tanuku Town PS, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

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 Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not issuing the Passport of the Petitioner bearing No. K9431635 in pursuance of his application for reissuing of passport vide file No. VS 1074822660122, (Application reference No.22-1012130675) dated 22.10.2022 on the ground an FIR is registered and investigation is pending against him as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from the provisions

¶17

- ’Of,Passport Act, 1967 and consequently direct the Respondents to renew A ■<v the same 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to register the pending document No. 1/2024 on the file of the 4th respondent treating the value of the document set forth in the document i.e., Rs.1,33,05,600/pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KANUKOLANU SRI SAI SANJAY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: Order

¶24

¶25

APHC010518912024

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3329]

¶28

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 26914/2024

¶32

Between:

¶33

Kantipudi Venkata Avinash

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND The Union of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.KANUKOLANU SRI SAI SAN JAY

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

1.GP FOR HOME

¶40

2.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

ORDER:-

¶43

This writ petition is filed claiming the following^relief;

¶44

“...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particulariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not issuing the Passport of the Petitioner bearing No.K9431635ⁱⁿ pursuance of his application for reissuing of passport vide file N0.VSI074822660122, (Application reference No.22-1012130675) dated 22.10.2022 on the ground an FIR is registered and investigation is pending against him as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution^of India apart from the provisions of Passport Act, 1967

¶45

¶46

and consequently direct the Respondents to renew the same forthwith and pass..."

¶47

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶48

The petitioner submitted that originally the petitioner got passport in the year 2013 vide Passport No.K9431635, dated 22.01.2013,^which is valid till 21.01.2023. In view of expiry of the passport, on 18.10.2022 the petitioner filed an application vide file No.VSI 074822660122 and reference No.221012130675 for renewal of passport. Subsequently, on 30.11.2022, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents before the 2"^^ respondent/ Regional Passport Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner^came to know that the petitioner’s application for renewal of passport is pending on the ground that F.l.R.No.294 of 2018 on the file of Tanuku Town Police Station, West Godavari District was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 468 r/w 34 I.P.C., before the 3^*^ respondent,^andthesame is pending for investigation. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no notice about the impugned F.l.R. and later the petitioner^{cametoknowthata} private complaint was filed by one Pantini Padmanabam^and the same is under investigation.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the right to travel is indeed a fundamental right and it cannot be deprived^{offunderArticle21of} the Constitution of India.

¶51

¶52

¶53

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the Ministry of External Affairs' GSR 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 the 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 a passport, the Respondents would comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E).

¶54

Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel, in our view, it is appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 as extracted herein under:

¶55

‘‘Section 6(2): Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shali refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— {a)that the applicant is not a citizen of India;

¶56

{b)that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage^{outsideIndiain} activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (cjthat the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;

¶57

i^that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;

¶58

[ejthat the applicant has, at any time during the period^offive years immediately preceding the date of his application,^been

¶59

¶60

convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment^for not less than two years;

¶61

(flthat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged^tohavebeen committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal^courtIn India;

¶62

(githat a warrant or summons for the appearance, or^awarrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by^acourtunder any law for the time being in force or that an order^{prohibitingthe} departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;

¶63

{hlthat the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation Qjthat in the opinion of the Central Government the^issueofa passport or travel document to the applicant will not^be in the public interest.

¶64

The issue of passport is regulated by the Passport^Act,1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this^purpose.

¶65

It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.

¶66

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

¶67

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

[

<c '

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

¶73

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

¶74

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 vs. Union of India (UOl) 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

Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the present writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring to^the criminal case i.e. FIR

¶77

¶78

No.294 of 2018 on the file of Tanuku Town Police Station West Godavari District and renew the passport to the petitioner, if otherwise the application is in order, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶79

This order shall not preclude the Respondents 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. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SDI- B.PRASAD RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTtofepriCER

¶80

SDI- B.PRASAD RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTtofepriCER

¶81