Kethireddy Jagadeswara Reddy Vs the Union of India

¶1

P IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) V„.

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTK

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 11471 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Kethireddy Jagadeswara Reddy, S/o. K. Chandramohan Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o.11-32-83, Brundavanam Colony, Kavali Town, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Government of India Ministry of Home and External Affairs MHA, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi

¶10

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport office, 4th floor. Stalin Central, D.No. 27-37-158, Governor pet, M.G. Road, Vijayawada -520002 '

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District,^{AP^}

¶12

v/'

¶13

1. The Station House Officer Kavali Rural Police Station Kavali, SPSR Nellore District.

¶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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondents in not renewing the petitioner passport bearing no. M5484468 vide application no. VJ2077493769725, dated: 18-03-2025 by addressing a letter dated:

¶16

25-03-2025 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violation^{ofarticle14and21} of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgment^{ofthisHon'blecourtin} Parchuri Ashok Babu Vs, Union of India (2022 SCC Online AP 2188) and consequently direct the 2nd respondents to renew and^{issuethepassportto} the petitioner forthwith as per the provisions of Passport^Act,1967. ^

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 2"'^ respondents to renew and^{issuethepassporttothe} petitioner forthwith as per the provisions of Passport^{Act,IQSy'r^}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ^{^}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI GANESH BABU (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL)

¶21

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

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

[3331]

APHC010226482025

rc "Br j k ~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 11471/2025

¶32

Between:

¶33

Kethireddy Jagadeswara Reddy ...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

The Union Of India and Others

¶36

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶40

1.GP FOR HOME

¶41

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

:: ORDER ::

¶44

Heard Sri K. Prudhvi Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ganesh Babu, learned Central Government Counsel, appeared for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government^Pleaderfor Home, appeared for respondents 3 & 4. 2. The petitioner made an application vide No.VJ2077493769725,^forthe re-issuance of passport. Respondent No.3 by proceedings Ref.No.VJ2077493769725, dated 21.03.2025 (signed on 25.03.2025),

¶45

Page 2 of 5

¶46

SRS,J W.P.No.11471 of 2025

¶47

directed the petitioner to obtain permission from the jurisdictional Court to travel abroad, since the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of criminal cases is no ground to deny reissuance of a passport.

¶49

Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that since the jurisdictional Court has taken the cognizance in respect of Cr.No.193 of 2022 of Kavali PS and numbered the same as S.C.No.47 of 2023 on the file of the learned V Addl. District Judge, Nellore, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Court and make an application. He would also submit that the petitioner is also involved in Cr.Nos.74 of 2024 and 255 of 2020, wherein the police filed charge sheets/final reports. However, the same were not taken cognisance.

¶50

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the learned jurisdictional Court and file an application. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India', observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone.

¶51

The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others^^observedas under:

¶52

"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative^{characterofthe} 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

¶53

' (1978) 1 see 248): AIR 1978 Se 597 ^ LAWS 2019(2) see Online Se 2048

¶54

Page 3 of 5

¶55

SRS.J WP.No.11471 of 2025

¶56

which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom Is a genuine human right."

¶57

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi^, observed as follows:

¶58

“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all^{thefundamental} rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under^{Article21ofthe} Constitution of India. ”

¶59

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2024,^{consideredthe} said aspect of cognisance by the Court in a criminal case vis-a-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and^{observedasfollows:} “16. Considering the facts of the present case on the^touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, It is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge^sheetfiled before It, cannot be said to have taken cognizance^{muchlesscanthe} Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only^If cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.^{Since,therewas} no cognizance taken, there would be no question of^{‘proceedings} pending before a criminal Court’, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.”

¶60

Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the police filed charge sheet/final report in Cr.No.193 of 2022 and^{thesamewasnumbered} as SC.No.47 of 2023 on the file of the learned V Addl. District Judge, Nellore,

¶61

^2013(15) see Page 570

¶62

Page 4 of 5

¶63

SRS.J W.P.No.11471 of 2025

¶64

wherein the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance. In respect of the other two crimes i.e. Cr.Nos.225 of 2020 and 74 of 2024, though the police filed charge sheets/final reports, the jurisdictional Court has not taken cognisance so far. Mere pendency of the aforementioned cases is no bar to renewing the passport.

¶65

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions: (i) The petitioner is given liberty to approach the learned V Addl. District Judge, Nellore and make an application. Upon making such application, the jurisdictional Court shall pass appropriate orders, by mentioning the period, keeping in view Rule 12 of the Rules. (ii) In respect of the other two crimes i.e. Cr.Nos.225 of 2020 and 74 of 2024, respondent No.2 shall renew/re-issue the passport, in pursuance of the orders passed by the jurisdictional Court in SC.No.47 of 2023 without reference to the above two crimes. (iii) If the petitioner intends to go abroad, the petitioner shall necessarily get permission from the jurisdictional courts. The petitioner shall not misuse the travel document. No order as to costs.

¶66

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

To,

¶69