Gollamudi Raja Sundara Babu v. Union Of India, Ministry of External Affairs

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to renew/reissue the passport of the petitioner as per application File No. VJ2076963633924 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. P SAI SURYA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010485102024 iTJ I? IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 25064/2024 Between: Gollamudi Raja Sundara Babu ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.PSAI SURYATEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT

2.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 25064/2024 ORDER:

#1. This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief; ■■to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly action in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring that the of the respondents in not renewing/reissuing the passport of the petitioner (Old Passport No.M5799846) with File number VJ2076963633924, dated 24.09.2024 arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act and its Rules and consequently violation of Article 21 of the direct petitioner’s passport renewal/reissuance application vide File No. VJ2076963633924 respondent to Constitution of India and process illegal, 3'^ accordingly renew/reissue passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 such other order or orders..." years and to pass

#2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner had a passport bearing No.M5799846 and the valid upto 29.01.2025. As the petitioner intend reissuance of the travel abroad to see his passport. The application daughter, he applied for of the petitioner was not processed.

#3. The 3'’^ respondent issued a letter dated 22.10.2024 to the petitioner calling for clarification with regard to the cri crime case i.e.. Crime No.11/2023 under Section 420, 509, 506 of IPC registered against the petitioner at Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the said crime case is a false case and so far 3 charge sheet is not filed. But without considering the same, the 3'’'^ respondent insisting for proof of clearance of the case to process the passport application.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a crime case i.e., Crime No.11/2023 under Section 420, 509, 506 of IPC was registered against the petitioner at Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District, but so far the charge sheet is not yet filed. As such. Section 6 or Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case.

#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of India and others. 1

#6. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Home submits that a crime case i.e.. Crime No.11/2023 under Section 420, 509, 506 of IPC was registered against the petitioner at Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District and the same is under investigation.

#7. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 furnished a police verification report, wherein it is stated that a crime case i.e.. Crime No.11/2023 under Section 420, 509, 506 of IPC was registered against the petitioner at Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District and the same is under investigation. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also relied upon a ^ MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022 4 judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others^.

#8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, and the learned Government Pleader for Home and also perused the material placed on record.

#9. It appears that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are under the premise that the petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal case and he applied for reissuance of passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that the said crime was registered as Crime No.11/2023 under Section 420, 509, 506 of IPC against the petitioner at Prathipadu Police Station and so far the charge sheet is not yet filed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the the action of Respondent No.3 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner is contrary to the law.

#10. For more understanding. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 i IS extracted hereunder: 'Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 and on no other ground, namely:— any one or more of the following grounds. {2i)that the applicant is not a citizen ofIndia; {h)that the 'applicant may, is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity ofIndia; ' 2023 {3)ALD213 (AP) 5 (cjthat the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d)that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations ofIndia with any foreign country; (e)that the applicant has, at any time during the period ofifve years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving turpitude and sentenced respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (fjthat proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (gfthat 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; (h)that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation (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.

#11. The issue of renewal and issuing of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose.

#12. It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance. 6

#13. In NarigeRavindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, the Higher Court for the State of Telangana held as follows;

#6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under: "The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

#14. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated

09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC online SC 2048 in Satish 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 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 which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right." ^ W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 7

#15. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the present writ petition is allowed.

#16. Further the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring criminal case and reissue/renew the passports to the petitioner, if otherwise the application is in order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

#17. This order shall not preclude the Respondents from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

#1. Principal Secretary, UNION OF INDIA, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi - 110 001.

#2. The Chief Passport Officer, Passport Authority of India, PSP Division, of External Affairs, Room No.8, Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Ministry Delhi- 110 001.

#3. The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 4th Floor, Door No.27- 37-158, Stalin Central, Governorpet, M.G.Road, Vijayawada.

#4. The Station House Officer, Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District. 5. One CC to Sri. P Sai Surya Teja, Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC to Sri. Thenepalli Niranjan SC for central. Govt Advocate [OPUC]

#7. Two CCS to GP For Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC].

#8. THREE CD Copies HIGH COURT TL DATED:12/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.25064 of 2024 '1^ AO I 9 NOV im . Current Section * oYtf ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS