Gopi Reddy Seelam Vs the Union of India

GOPI REDDY SEELAM, S/O. SRINIVASA REDDY SEELAM, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. 7-23, PEDDA BANDA BAZARU,GOTTUMUKALA, KANCIKACHERLA, NTR DISTRICT 521 180, A P

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PASSPORT AND VISA DIVISION MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

¶13

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 4 FLOOR, STAIN CENTER, D NO. 27-37-158, GOVERNORPET, M G ROAD, VIJAYAWADA 520 002 ANDHRA PRADESH

¶14

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANCHIKACHERLA POLICE STATION KANCHIKACHERLA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 toPleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not processing my application dated 24.12.2024, Application Reference.No. ARN 24 -1015550353 Application ID No. 100023484689624, for issue of passport though 11 months are lapsed is illegal, Improper,

¶17

SRK, J W.P.No.1469 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue passport in favour of petitioner and to pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application of petitioner for issue of passport vide Application Reference No. ARN 24 -1015550353 Application ID No. 100023484689624, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.M.VINOD KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

2.PELLETI RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

SRK, J W.P.No.1469 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.1469 of 2026

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents.

¶34

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶35

To declare the action of the respondent No.2 in not processing the application of petitioner dated 24.12.2024, application reference No.ARN 24- 1015550353, application ID No.100023484689624, for issuance of passport though 11 months are lapsed, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to issue passport in favour of petitioner.

¶36

Case of petitioner is that he is permanent resident of Gottumukkala, Kanchikacherla, NTR District. He applied for passport on 28.06.2023. Later, he received letter from 2^nd respondent stating that as per police verification, he was involved in five criminal cases, and it was directed to furnish case clearance proof or NOC to travel abroad from the same Court where criminal proceedings are pending in person and issued notice to submit explanation with documents to the Visakhapatnam passport office, in person, before 30 working days on any working day from Monday to Friday. Though he visited the office of 2^nd respondent at Visakhapatnam and stated that except the Crime No.136 of 2018 of Kanchikacherla Police Station, no other cases are pending, his case is not considered for issuance of passport and his previous application was closed.

¶37

SRK, J W.P.No.1469 of 2026

¶38

4

¶39

ii. On 24.12.2024, again, he applied for passport and personally visited the office of 2^nd respondent and stated that except Crime No.136 of 2018, no other cases pending against him and the said Crime No.136 of 2018, on filing of charge sheet, was taken on file as STC No.315 of 2019 on the file of Special Judicial II Class Magistrate, Nandigama and he was arrayed as accused No.5 in that case. Without considering his explanation in proper perspective and without considering the recent judgments of this Court, his application was kept pending.

¶40

A perusal of material on record goes to show that five cases have been registered against the petitioner, among five cases, three cases were closed on the ground of compromise. As of now, in respect of the petitioner, one case is pending i.e., Crime No.136 of 2018 of Kanchikacherla Police Station for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Gaming Act. In respect of Crime No.97 of 2021 for the offence under Section 110 Cr.P.C. of Kanchikacherla Police Station, the petitioner was bound over.

¶41

The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Home submits that pursuant to issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner has not submitted his explanation.

¶42

Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 deals with application for obtaining a passport. Section 6 thereof deals with refusal of a passport. Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 contemplates that the passport issuing authority shall be bound to reject the application for issuance of a passport, if criminal proceedings are pending in any Court in India. The Government

¶43

SRK, J W.P.No.1469 of 2026

¶44

5

¶45

of India issued a Notification vide GSR No.570E, dated 25.08.1993. GSR 570 (E) reads as follows:

¶46

<In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (Act 15 of 1967) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.GSR 298(E) dated the 14^th April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, viz :- …=

¶47

A plain reading of the aforesaid Notification would go to show that if any citizen of India intends to travel abroad when a criminal case is pending as against him before a criminal court in India, he has to produce orders from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India exempting from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

¶48

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation¹ held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.

¶49

1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572.

¶50

SRK, J W.P.No.1469 of 2026

¶51

6

¶52

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India² held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. The relevant portion of the paragraph No.5 is extracted as under:

¶53

<Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.

¶54

Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.=

¶55

2 1978 (1) SCC 248.

¶56

SRK, J W.P.No.1469 of 2026

¶57

7

¶58

9. This Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and another³ at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6, observed as under:

¶59

<4. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction I was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport.

¶60

This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction and makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.

¶61

The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is

¶62

3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP).

¶63

SRK, J W.P.No.1469 of 2026

¶64

8

¶65

referred to in the counter-affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court.

¶66

The Central Government has also issued GSR No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f).

¶67

In view of the said reasons, the petitioner herein is permitted to submit his explanation to the show cause notice issued by the respondent authorities, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of

¶68

SRK, J W.P.No.1469 of 2026

¶69

9

¶70

copy of this order. Thereupon, respondent authorities are directed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶71