Allowed

Teluguntla Sukanya v. the Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jul 2024WP/9379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to surrender her passport. The court held that since the referenced criminal cases were only in the FIR or compromised stage at the time, the passport authority's action was illegal and arbitrary, violating fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings directing surrender of passport (Letter Ref No. SCN/316166583/23 dated 08.11.2023) were set aside, and the respondent was directed not to withhold the passport.

Teluguntla Sukanya Vs the Union… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ,

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA , WRIT PETITION NO: 9379 OF 2024 .

¶7

Between:

¶8

Teluguntia Sukanya,.,W/o. Bala Krishna Venkata Prakash, Aged about 56 years, R/o. C-33, 3rd Flo6f,‘-‘.L;ptus Legend Apartments,^Kummaripalem Centre, Vidhyadharapurajp, Vijayavyada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶9

’V ...PETITIONER

¶10

.V .V

¶11

ND

¶12

The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Represented by its .

¶13

Principal Secretary South Block, New Delhi-110 001.

¶14

The Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, Near^P.F.Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem, VU DA Layout, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam530009, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Town Police^{StationGuntur} Urban District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ Of mandamus,^{declaringtheactionof} the 2 nd Respondent in issuing Proceedings vide Letter Ref No. SCN/316166583/23 dated 08.11.2023 thereby directing the Petitioner herein to surrender her passport bearing Passport No.Y6657815^within21 days of the receipt of the Impugned Proceedings as^{beingillegal,arbitrary} and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and the Passports Rules, 1980 and als6 in violation of Article²¹ of the Constitution

¶18

••• of India and consequently set-aside the Proceedings^{videLetterRefNo.} •r 4'301^/316166583/23 dated 08.11.2023 issued by the 2 nd Respondent h-ereln. I j i'i .a' i'-i] W' irxf

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support pf the petition, the, High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2 herein not to take any coercive steps as against the Petitioner including seizure/impounding of the Passport of the Petitioner bearing Passport No.Y5657815 in pursuance of the Proceedings vide Letter Ref Np. SCN/316166583/23^{dated08.11.2023} issued by the 2'^'^ Respondent herein.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. PULIPATI RADHIKA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nps.1 & 2: M/s. UMA DEVI,^CENTRALGOVT.

¶23

COUNSEL

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

APHC010188102024

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶28

[3329]

¶29

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

TUESDAY.THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 9379/2024

¶34

Between:

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

TeluguntlaSukanya ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PULIPATI RADHIKA

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.GP FOR HOME 3.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

ORPER:-

¶40

This writ petition is filed claiming the following^relief:

¶41

‘‘...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the^actionof Respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings vide letter Ref No. SCN/316166583/23, dated 08.11.2023 thereby directing the petitioner herein to surrender her passport^bearing Passport bearing Passport No.Y5657815 within 21 days^ofthe

¶42

¶43

receipt of the impugned proceedings as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and the passports Rules, 1980 and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently sehaside the proceedings vide Letter Ref No. SCN/316166583/23, dated 08.11:2023 issued by the Respondent No.2 herein and to pass such other order or orders... ”

¶44

The case of the petitioner is that, Respondent No.2 authority has issued the impugned proceedings vide Letter Ref No. SCN/316166583/23, dated 08. T1.2023 titied ciarifications required regarding passport issuing facilities to the petitioner. The contents of the Impugned proceedings are that the Respondent No.2 authorities received an adverse Police verification Report corresponding to the Passport of the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is involved in a Criminal Case. It is further stated that the Petitioner is directed to submit her explanation and surrender her passport at the Passport Office, Visakhapatnam within 21 days of issuance of the Notice. But, neither the Police Verification Report nor the Show-cause Notice are reflecting the criminal cases pending which resulted in the Adverse/Negativ^e Police Verification Report, furnished to the Petitioner.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after receipt of the notice dated 08.11.2023 issued by Respondent No.2, the petitioner^submitted a detailed explanation on 20.11.2023, wherein it is explained^{thatthereferred} Criminal Case is still in F.I.R stage. As such. Section^{6orSection10ofthe} Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case.

¶46

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied .upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar^vs. The^Unionof India and others.^

¶48

On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted the written instructions furnished by Respondent No.3,^wherein it is stated that the Criminal Case which was referred in the impugned^notice is in the crime stage only and based on a report of a case in Cr.No.762 of 2020 registered under Sections 420, 406, 506 of IPC and Sections 3,^{8and29ofthePawn} Brokers Act, 2002 at Mangalagiri Town Police Station. It is further stated that Respondent No.3 is ho way concerned in respect of issuance^{ofnoticetothe} petitioner by Respondent No.2.

¶49

Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.i and 2 also placed written instructions wherein it is stated that the said criminal case is in the crime stage only. The petitioner submitted her explanation^{on20.11.2023and} the same was received by the Respondent Authorities on 22.11.2023. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.i and 2 also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others^.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.i and 2, and the learned^{GovernmentPleader} for Home and also perused the material placed on record.

¶51

^ MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022

¶52

^ 2023(3)ALD213 (AP)

¶53

¶54

It appears that the impugned notice was issued by Respondent^No.2on the premise that the petitioner herein is involved^{inaseriouscriminalcaseand} she obtained a passport by suppressing the same. But,^{thefactremainsthat} the said crime was still in the FIR stage, and the same was registered as Cr.No.762 of 2020 under Sections 420,406, 506, 406 of IPC and Sections 3, 8 and 29 of Pawn Brokers Act, 2002 at Mangalagiri Police Station.Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the pase, the proceedings of Respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to surrender the passport is contrary to the law.

¶55

This Court opines that the Respondent Authorities cgnnot^directthe petitioner to surrender her passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal case registered against the petitioner.'The applicant / petitioner herein involved in three cases i.e.1) Cr. No. 762/2020 U/s 406,420,506 IPC, 28, 3 LKS of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, this'case is under investigation (UI). 2) Cr. No. 528/2022 U/s 420,506 IPC. Mangalagiri Town Police Station, Guntur District and this case was compromised before Lok Adalat and 3) Cr.No.360/2022, U/s 420,506 r/w 34 IPC at Mangalagiri Town Police Stationand this case was compromised before LokAdalat. Accordingly the accused was acquitted U/s. 320 (8) Cr.P.C by the Hon'ble^{AdditionalJunior} Civil Judge Court, Guntur District.

¶56

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

¶57

¶58

“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) oj sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:—

¶59

{a)that the applicant is not a citizen ofIndia;

¶60

{h)that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity ofIndia; (c)that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security ofIndia; (djthat the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e}that the applicant has, at any time during the period of ifve years immediately preceding the date of his application, been 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; (fjjhat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

¶61

(gjthat a warrant or summons for the appearance, dr a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;

¶62

fhithat the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation

¶63

[flthat in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public^interest.

¶64

The issue of renewal 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

¶67

In NarigeRavindranath 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

¶69

570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para^13observedas under:

¶70

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.

¶71

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 at para 4 observed as under:

¶72

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.

¶73

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

¶74

¶75

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 and the order of Respondent^{No.2issuedvideLetter} Ref No.SCN/316166583/23, dated 08.11.2023 is hereby^set-aside.

¶76