Disposed¶48

Udaragondi Rama Rao v. the Union of India

Passports Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f) – refusal to renew passport citing adverse police verification report

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Feb 2026WP/3213/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport renewal refused on adverse police verification report; Section 6(2)(f) Passports Act 1967; pending criminal proceeding after cognizance; closed FIR; Crime No.12/RCT-ACB-VJA-2014; ACB Vijayawada Range; GO Rt.No.381 dated 10.05.2017; G.S.R.No.570(E) dated 25.08.1993; Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. CBI (Crl.A.No.1342 of 2017); W.P.No.20058 of 2020 (Madras HC); direction to consider renewal application; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Writ Petition No.3213 of 2026; K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of his passport in accordance with law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶48

Udaragondi Rama Rao Vs the Union of India — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of his passport in accordance with law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the 2nd respondent was justified in not renewing the petitioner's passport citing an adverse police verification report, when the only criminal case against the petitioner (FIR in Crime No.12/RCT-ACB-VJA-2014) had been closed and no proceeding was pending before a criminal court after cognizance.

¶19

Court's answer

The grounds on which renewal of the petitioner's passport was being refused could at best fall within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, a provision whose ambit is fairly settled.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Operation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 arises only when there is a pending proceeding before the criminal court after cognizance is taken.

¶47

Key takeaways

As of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court against the petitioner, the FIR in Crime No.12/RCT-ACB-VJA-2014 having been closed.ratio¶47
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of his passport in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Passports Act, 1967 — Section 6(2)(f) — refusal to renew passport citing adverse police verification report — petitioner's passport (No.L4714966) expired on 12.09.2023; renewal application dated 22.09.2023 kept pending despite notice dated 06.03.2024 — sole criminal case against petitioner (FIR in Crime No.12/RCT-ACB-VJA-2014, ACB Vijayawada Range) closed by learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada on 21.08.2018 in view of GO Rt.No.381, Home (SC.A) Department, dated 10.05.2017 — Section 6(2)(f) operates only where a proceeding is pending before a criminal court after cognizance is taken — no pending criminal proceeding — relying on Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (SC, Crl.A.No.1342 of 2017) and W.P.No.20058 of 2020 (Madras HC), and G.S.R.No.570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — writ petition disposed of with direction to 2nd respondent to consider renewal application in accordance with law — no costs.

¶1

APHC010053742026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3213 OF 2026

Between:

Udaragondi Rama Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

The Union of India and others

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶14

1.N ASHWANI KUMAR

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶16

1.NAMRATHA CHOUDARY P CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL

¶17

2.GP FOR HOME

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

The present Writ Petition has been filed questioning the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent No.2, in not renewing the passport of the petitioner citing adverse police verification report vide Letter Ref.No.SCN/317278937/24, dated 06.03.2024.

¶20

SRK, J WP No.3213 of 2026

¶21

¶22

Case of the petitioner is that he was issued a passport bearing No.L4714966 by the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad on 13.09.2013 for a period of 10 years. The said passport expired on 12.09.2023. Therefore, he made an application for renewal of passport vide File No.VJ2075808417923, dated 22.09.2023. Subsequently, 2^nd respondent issued a notice vide Letter Ref.No. SCN/317278937/24, dated 06.03.2024, stating that an adverse police verification report was received from the Police Department. In response to the said notice, petitioner submitted his detailed explanation stating that only one case was registered against him and even in that criminal case, the State Government issued GO Rt.No.381, Home (SC.A) Department, dated 10.05.2017, recommending for initiating departmental action instead of prosecuting the criminal case, and the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, after taking into consideration the said GO issued by the State Government, closed the FIR in Crime No.12/RCT-ACB-VJA-2014 on the file of ACB, Vijayawada Range, vide order dated 21.08.2018. Though the criminal case pending against the petitioner herein was closed, 2^nd respondent, without considering the said fact and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has kept the application of the petitioner for renewal of his passport pending. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition. Petitioner, in proof of his contentions, filed relevant documents vide Annexure - 1 to 5.

¶23

Heard. Perused the record.

¶24

SRK, J WP No.3213 of 2026

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

(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:-

¶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

¶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

¶37

SRK, J WP No.3213 of 2026

¶38

¶39

document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be

¶44

SRK, J WP No.3213 of 2026

¶45

¶46

required from a Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f).

¶47

In view of the fact that operation of 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.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to 2^nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of his Passport in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

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

¶50

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

¶51

Date:11.02.2026 Nsr

¶52

SRK, J WP No.3213 of 2026

¶53

¶54

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶55