Surapaneni Lalitha Kumari, Vs The Union of India

The present Writ Petition has been filed questioning the action of the respondents, particularly respondent Nos.1 and 2, in not processing the online application of the petitioner bearing File No.VJ2077578759325, dated 29.04.2025, submitted for reissue of passport.

¶20

SRK, J WP No.3127 of 2026

¶21

2

¶22

Case of the petitioner is that she is a resident of Vijayawada and earlier she was issued a passport on 15.05.2012. She applied for reissue of passport through online bearing File No.VJ2077578759325, dated 29.04.2025. The application of the petitioner was not being processed by the respondent authorities on the ground that a criminal case is pending against her in Crime No.488 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur Urban district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 465, 472 read with 34 IPC. Petitioner states that the police have neither filed any charge sheet nor has any Court of competent jurisdiction taken cognizance of the said crime till date. Petitioner further states that her daughter is presently residing in Australia and she being the mother has to attend to her daughter’s needs and to take care of her. Aggrieved by the nonconsideration of her application, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶23

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the case in Crime No.488 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station is at the stage of investigation.

¶24

The issue and renewal of passports is regulated by the Passports Act, 1967. Section 6(2), extracted below, is relevant for this purpose.

¶25

(2) 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:-

¶26

SRK, J WP No.3127 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.,

¶29

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.,

¶30

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India.,

¶31

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country.,

¶32

(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five 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.,

¶33

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court of India.,

¶34

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or 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.,

¶35

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation.,

¶36

(i) that 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.

¶37

The grounds on which, the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is being refused could at best fall within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act,1967. This provision has been considered in various cases and the ambit of this provision is fairly settled.

¶38

SRK, J WP No.3127 of 2026

¶39

4

¶40

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 27.09.2021 in Crl.A.No.1342 of 2017 in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, after considering Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, held that the passport authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal case and directed the passport authority to renew the passport.

¶41

A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras in the order dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would be depended on no objection being given by the concerned Court.

¶42

The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.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).

¶43

In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, 1967, would arise only when there is a pending proceeding before the Criminal Court after cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court.

¶44

SRK, J WP No.3127 of 2026

¶45

5

¶46

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for reissue of Passport without raising any objection relating to the pendency of Crime No.488 of 2021 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Guntur Urban district. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶48

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

¶49

Date:11.02.2026 Nsr

¶50

SRK, J WP No.3127 of 2026

¶51

6

¶52

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY