Allowed

Shaik Raheem v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Dec 2024WP/28616/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police constable sought renewal of his expired passport; the Regional Passport Officer refused pending resolution of an FIR registered against him. Holding that mere pendency of investigation is not a ground under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act to refuse renewal, the court directed renewal without reference to the criminal case.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider renewal of the petitioner's passport without reference to the FIR, if otherwise in order, within three weeks; no costs.

Shaik Raheem Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

= \

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28616 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Raheem, S/o Noor Abdul Khan Aged 31 yrs Occ Police Constable D.No.21-10-12/3, A.V.N. College down , Visakhapatnam.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Union Of India, Ministry of Finance Represented by its Secretary, Sastry Bhavan New Delhi.

¶12

The Regioinal Pass Port Officer, Regional Pass Port Office , Visakhapatnam.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Office, Suryabagh , Visakhapatnam.

¶14

The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station Visakhapatnam City.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particulalry one in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particulalry the 2nd Respondent not entertaining the Renewal of the Petitioner Passport NO.M1497041 is Expired on 25/08/2024 only on the

¶17

sole ground petitoner having F.I.R. No.241/2024 on^thefile III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam there by insisting the petitioner to^{obtainaNoObjection} Certificate or any Order from this Hon'ble Court for renewal of the Petitioner's Pass Port vide Pass Port No.M 1497041 it is nothing but an Illegal, Unalwful, Violation of Article 14,19,21 of^{theConstitutionofIndia,} Violation of Principles of Natural Justice , Violaiton^{oftheRulingsofApex} Court as well as Central Government Rules Consequently^{todirectthe2nd} respondent to Renewal of the Petitioner Pass Port No.M^1796691 without reference to the F.I.R.NO.241/2024 on the file of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam in the interest of the justice.

¶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,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to Renewal of^{thePetitionerPass} Port No.M 1796691 without reference to the F.I.R.NO.241/2024^onthefile of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam in the interest of^thejustice.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. RAVURI LEELA SAI^SAMPATH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI THENEPALLI^NIRANJANSC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

APHC010545262024

¶25

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

¶26

[3329]

¶27

FRIDAY JHE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 28616/2024

¶31

Between:

¶32

...PETITIONER Shaik Raheem

¶33

AND

¶34

Union Of India and Others

¶35

...RESPONDENT{S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.RAVURI LEELA SAI SAMPATH

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

. V

¶42

¶43

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO: 28616/2024 ORDER:

¶45

This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following^relief:

¶46

issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly^one

¶47

in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the^actionofthe respondents particularly the 2'^^ respondent not entertaining^the renewal of the petitioner’s passport No. M1497041 is^Expiredon 25.08.2024 only on the sole ground petitioner having F.I.R.No.241/2024 on the file of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam there by Insisting the petitioner to obtain a No Objection Certificate or any Order from this Hon’ble Court for^renewalof the petitioner’s passport vide passport No.Ml497041 it is nothing but an Illegal, unlawful. Violation of Articles^14,19&21 of the Constitution of India, violation of principles^ofnatural justice. Violation of the Rulings of Apex Court as well as Central Government Rules and consequently to direct^{the2”"^} respondent to renewal the petitioner’s Pass Port No.M1796691 without reference to the F.I.R.No.241/2024 on the file^of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam in the interest of the justice^andto pass such other order or orders...”

¶48

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that^{thepetitionerhas} passport bearing No.M1497041 and the same is expired on 25.08.2024. Hence, the petitioner made an application to the 2^'^^{respondentforrenewalof} the passport. While things stood thus, a false crime^{casewasregistered} against the petitioner vide F.I.R.No.241/2024 dated^{01.10.2024onthefileof} the lil Town Police Station. The petitioner challenged^{thesaidF.I.Rbeforethis}

¶49

¶50

Court vide CRL.P.No.7809 of 2024 and the same is pending for final false case and is pending for adjudication. The said crime case is a investigation and no charge sheet is filed till today.^{Thesamewasinformedto} nd the 2 respondent, but the 2""' respondent not considered^{theapplicationof} the petitioner for renewal of the passport and directed^{thepetitionertoobtain} an order from the competent court. Hence, the present^{WritPetition.}

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the^{petitioner’swifeis} getting good opportunities to work at abroad and in that connection the petitioner intend to go abroad along with his wife.^{Hefurthersubmitsthatthe} F.I.R registered against the petitioner is pending^{forinvestigation.Assuch.} Section 6 or Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar^{vs.TheUnionof} 1 India and others.

¶53

Sri Thenepalli Niranjan, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner deliberately^{suppressedaboutthe} crime case. He also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court^inKadar Vain Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External^{Affairs,NewDelhiand} others^.

¶54

^ MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022 ^ 2023(3)ALD213 (AP)

¶55

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Thenepalli Niranjan learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader for Home and also perused the material placed on record.

¶57

It appears that the respondent No.2 is under the presumption^thatthe petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal case and he applied for renewal of passport by suppressing the same. But, the^{factremainsthatthe} said crime was registered vide F.I.R.No.241/2024 dated^{01.10.2024onthefile} of III Town Police Station and the same is pending for investigation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of respondent No.2 in not renewing/re-issuing the passport to the petitioners is contrary to the law.

¶58

For more understanding. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is extracted hereunder:

¶59

“Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall 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:—

¶60

(a)that the applicant is not a citizen of India;

¶61

(b)that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage^{outsideIndiainactivities} prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

¶62

(cjithat the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;

¶63

[^that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the fripndly relations of India with any foreign country; [ejthat the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a

¶64

¶65

court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude^{andsentencedin} respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two^years;

¶66

(flthat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal^{courtinIndia;} igXthat a warrant or summons for the appearance, or^a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court^{underanylawforthe} time being in force or that an order prohibiting the^{departurefromIndiaof} the applicant has been made by any such court;

¶67

[h}that the applicant has been repatriated and has^{notreimbursedthe} expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation

¶68

(i}that in the opinion of the Central Government the^{issueofapassportor} travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.

¶69

The issue of renewal and issuing of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted^above is relevant for this purpose. 10. 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.

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

under:

¶73

^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 \

¶74

¶75

"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." 7. 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 Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others^atpara 4 observed as under:

¶76

"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."

¶77

Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances^ofthecaseand the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well^{asthisCourt,thepresent} writ petition is allowed.

¶78

Further the respondents are directed to consider the^{applicationofthe} petitioner without referring to the criminal case and renew the^{passportofthe} petitioner, if otherwise the application is in order,^within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶79

¶80