Kiran T Vs Union of India

¶1

V

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 31038 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kiran T, S/o. Late Suryachndra Rao, Aged about 45 years,^Occ:Advocate R/o.Flat No. 503, Netaji Towers Navodaya Colony, Tadepalli Guntur District, A.P.-522501

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Regional passport Officer, Passport Office, Vijayawada

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶14

The Station House Officer, Patamata PS, Vijayawada,^NTRDistrict.

¶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 Writ, or Writs, Order or Orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly 2'^'^ respondent in issuing the proceedings vide SCN/316163633/23 dated 07-11-2023 in rejecting the issuance of petitioners passport made vide application in file^{No.VJF066784666524as} illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional, also violation^ofArticle21 of Constitution of India as well against well settled principles of law and consequently direct the 2^^^^ respondent to issue passport in furtherance of the application

¶17

I

¶18

vide file No. VJF066784666524 made by the petitioner^{bydulysetting} aside the proceedings dated 07-11-2023.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 Respondents to process and issue^{passporttothe} petitioner by suspending the operation of the rejection^{orderissuedbythe} Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada vide SCN/316163633/23 dated 07-11-2023 pending disposal of the main writ Petition^{forimmediatetravel} needs pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2; SRI THENEPALLI^NIRANJAN,SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT

¶23

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

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

i )

¶26

APHC010592912024

¶27

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

¶28

[3329]

¶29

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 31038/2024 Between:

¶33

Kiran T ...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶36

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT 2.GP FOR HOME

¶39

2

¶40

r

¶41

The Court made the following;

¶42

This writ petition is filed claiming the following^relief:

¶43

“...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly^one

¶44

in the nature of writ of Mandamus

¶45

A) To declare the action of the respondents, particularly^{2"^} respondent in issuing proceedings vide SCN/316163633/23 dated 07.11.2023 in rejecting the issuance of petitioner’s passport vide application File No.VJF066784666524 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of the^Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2”^ respondent^toissue passport in furtherance of the application vide File No. VJF066784666524 made by the petitioner duly setting aside the proceedings dated 07.11.2023. ’’

¶46

The case of the petitioner is as follows;

¶47

Petitioner herein is a passport holder bearing passport^No.K8591950 issued on 03.12.2012, valid upto 02.12.2022. Vide application vide SCN/316163633/23 dated 07.11.2023, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same.

¶48

Respondent No.2 herein had issued a letter dated 07.11.2023^seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport^{asitisevident fromthepolice} verification report that the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case vide

7*^

L_

3

Crime No.66 of 2023 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada. Though the petitioner had explained with regard to pendency^{ofthecriminalcase,the2} nd respondent did not consider for renewal of the passport.^{Hence,thewritpetition.}

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the^{complainantwaslodged} based on false allegations and except that, there is^{nooffence.Hefurthersubmits} that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is nothing but an infringement^{ofFundamentalRights} guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution^ofIndia.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it^{isthefundamentalrightof} the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go^{abroadasperhiswishasheld}

¶55

in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court^{particularlyinManeka} Gandhi vs. Union of lndia\

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon^{theratiolaiddownby} this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India^{andothers^.Inviewof} the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled^{forrenewalofthepassport} the

¶57

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents^submitted written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated 04.07.2024, wherein it is stated that as per the Ministry’s GSR^570(E) Notification dated

¶58

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

¶59

r

¶60

/

¶61

25.08.1993, when a criminal case is pending against^{theapplicantinanyCriminal} Court, the applicant has to produce either an Acquittal^{OrderorNoObjection} Certificate (NOC) from the Court below where case is^{pendingalongwithGSR} Hence, if the Court gives permission to the applicant^totravel 570(E) undertaking. abroad and directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order in accordance with^{theGSR570(E).} 9. It is also further contended that in the light of^{thedecisionofthelearned} Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case\ the. petitioner^{isrequiredtoobtainorders} from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against^him.

¶62

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned^{counselforthe} Respondents and also perused the material placed on record.

¶63

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

¶64

(a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction^{totherespondent} the passport without insisting on passport authorities to renew with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding^the compliance pendency of the criminal case In the Court concerned^{fortrial,isrejected.} (b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to^{3toconsiderthe} covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the cases of the petitioners

¶65

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

¶66

5

¶67

r

¶68

Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production^oftheorder from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial.

¶69

(c) On production of an order from the concerned Court,^{asaforesaid,the} application for renewal shall not be rejected on the^groundofmere pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject^{tocomplianceof} other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993.

¶70

Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of^{thisCourtdisposedof} the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant^portionof which reads as follows:-

¶71

dated '9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 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^{aftercognizanceis} taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal^{ofthepassport} would be depend on no objection being given by the^{concernedCourt.} 10. The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E),^dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would^{berequiredfroma} 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^{asofnowthereisno} pending criminal proceeding before the Court. ”

¶72

6

¶73

In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others'*, the Higher

¶74

Court for the State of Telangana held as follows:

¶75

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

¶76

"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."

¶77

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: "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.

¶78

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

7

r^'

f

In the light of the settled legal position, this Court^{isinclinedtodisposeof} the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2^{toconsidertheapplication of} the petitioner, and renew his passport for a period of three (03) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide Crime No.66 of 2023 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy^ofthisorder.

¶83

However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the^{petitionerforanyother} purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶84