Boya Ramesh v. against the provisions of the Passport Act

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 To direct the respondent No. 1 to renew the passport bearing No. K4773592 belonging to the petitioner forthwith enabling the petitioner to travel to Abu Dhabi to look after the grandchird of the petitioner pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS 99y1:"t forthe Respondents: SRt B.NARAS|MHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOL|C|TOR GENERAL /sRl cADr PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. soLrGrroR GENERAL op rNora- W.P.NO: 150 OF 2025 Between: [9n{al !a9 Adi, S/o Adi Muthyam Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, -*' No 2-1o-1942. Bhagya Nagar, Karimnagai farlrnrgr'rbistriit- SOsOOi.' AND ...PET|T|ONER

1. The Union of lndia, Ministry of Extemal Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2 J!9 Regional Passport Officer, Regional passport ffice, D.No.B-2_21 Sto 2 1 9, N e a r P ra s h a n i T h ea t re, (u m ni arg ud al S-icu nO-" i, o, a _o e ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 ot the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to decrare the action of the Respondent No.2 in not renewing the passport services to the petitioner vide proceedings Letter No. scN/31 6533041r23 (Fite No No. Hy7075 B}4zsz323) dated 18-12-2023 on account of pendency of crime No. 404 of 2o2o on the file of the Karimnagar Rural police station registered for offences punishable u/s 323, 427, 44g,506 of lpc as illegal, high handed and arbitrary apart from being in vioration of the rights of the Petitioner under Articre 14, 19 and 2't of the constitution of rndia and consequenfly set-a-side the proceedings dated 1g-12-2023 and direct the Respondent No.2 to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing No.LS404250 for the period of .r0 ten years. IANO: 1c)F 25 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 preased to - 3- suspend the impugned proceedings Letter Ref.No. scN/316533041123 daled 18- 12'2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS BHUSARAPU Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL /SRl cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF tNDtA W.P.NO: 180 OF 2025 Between: Qgla livgpalatha, Wo Boya Ramesh Age. 60 years Occ. Housewife Rt/o SRT - 465/A, Sanathnagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad-, Telangana 5O0OlB. AND ...PET|TIONER

1. Regional Passp_ort- O-ffice' Hyderabad D.No.8-2-215 to 21g, Kummarguda, 2. The U_nion of lndia, through Secretary Ministry of External Affairs South Block Secunderabad 500003, Teldngana. New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing No. K6422004 without reference to the crime case against the petitioner in the interest of justice and declare the action of the respondent No.1 in not renewing the passport of the petitioner on the-ground of pendency of criminal case as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the Passport Act. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the respondent No. 1 to renew the passport bearing No. K6422004 belonging to the petitioner forthwith enabling the petitioner to travel to Abu Dhabi to look after the grandchild of the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. + Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL /SRl GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA W.P.NO: 37183 OF 2024 Between: Kunchala Yedukondalu, S/o. Narsimha Kunchala, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, Fi.io. H. No.11-4-322111 , Flat No.401, Sevenhills Enclave, chitkalguda Secunderabad, Hyderabad ...pETt,oNER AND

1. The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary Ministry of Extemal affairs New Delhi 2. The Regional Passport officer, Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in considering the passport application No.HY1076848780'124 of the 'Petitioner vide passport No. M2369252 for renewal as Arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violation of Article '14, 19 and 21 of constitution of lndia and the provisions of the Passport Rules, 1980 consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to renew the passport application No.HY1076848780124 of the Petitioner vide passport No. M2369252. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to direct the 2nd Respondent to renew the passport application No.HY1076848780124 vide passport No. M2369252 of the Petitioner herein, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SR! MYKALA TITUS FINNY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL /SRl cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR,GENERAL OF tNDtA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.92 15() 180 0F 2025 AND 371a3 of 2o24 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these Writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard iearned Counsel for petitioners, Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents and perused the record.

3. It is the common case of the petitioners that the petitioners in all rhese Writ Petitions have been holding passport and on its expiry had approached the respondent authorities and sought for its renewal by submitting an application; and that inspite of the petitioners submitting the application, their passports are not being renewed.

4. It is also the further case of ttre petitioners that the respondents on the other hand have issued notices seeking clarification whereby the petitioners were called upon to submit their expianation as to why renewal of passport should not be denied on ttre ground of pending Criminai Cases, which action it 7 is contended is highly iliegal, arbitrary and also contrary to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vangala Ka.sturi Rangacharyulu o. Central Buteau of Inuestigationl '

5. Petitioners further contend that this Court in Intra Court Appeai vide W.A. No.263 of 2024 by order date'd lO 'O4 '2024 while examining the conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.674B of 2024 directing the respondents to renew the passport, had held the following conditions stated to be by no stretch of imagination to be unreasonable which are as under: The petitioner herein shatl submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in Crime No.22 of 2023 of Karamchedu P'S before the competent Court stating that he will not leave India during pendency of the said case without permission 01'the Court and that he will co-operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said case; 11 r11. On hling such an undertaking as well as aflidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certihed copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom; The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy of aforesaid undertaking before the Respondent-Passport Oflicer for renewa-l of his passport; The Respondent-Passport Officer shall consider the application of the petitioner dared O2.Q2.2O23, seeking renewal of petitioner's 1 Live Larv 2021 SC 533 = 2O2O Criminal l'aw Journal SC 572 3 passport in the li8ht of the observations made by this Court herein as wett as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner in accordance with law; On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original renewed Passport before the trial Court in Crime No 22 of 2023 of Karamchedu P.S., and However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the trial Court seeking permission to trav€1 abroad and it is for the trial Court to consider the same in accordance to [aw."

6. It is also contended that inspite of this Court passing the orders in various Writ Petitions, the respondent authorities continue to issue a cryptic communication in the form of notice seeking clarification as to pendency of the Criminal Case being shown as reason for non-consideration of the application for which reason the petitioners are compelled to approach this Court. 7 . Per contra, learned Additional Solicitor General who had appeared in the matter at the rcquest of this Court on behalf of the iearned Standing Counsel appearing on behaif of respondents, by drawing attention of this Court to Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act') would submit that the aforesaid provision confers power on the authorities to refuse issue of a passport or travel document. 4

8. Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that Section 22 of the Act confers power on the Central Government to exempt anv person or class of persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act; and that in exercise of such por"{.er conferred, Cential Government had issued notification vide G.S.R. No.S7O(E) dated 25.08.1993 whereby certain conditions have been prescribed for granting exemption to citizens against whom the offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before the Criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India.

9. Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that since the exemption granted under the aforesaid notiFrcation issued by the Central Government is subject to condition precedent, the same cannot be considered as a blanket exemption being granted for renewal/reissue of Passport. i0. i have taken note ofthe respective conditions urged. 1i. Though Section 6(Z)(0 of the Act confers power on the Passport Authority to refuse to issue Passport, it is to be noted that in all the present Writ Petitions the petitioners are not seeking for issue of Passport for the first time, but are al1 / 5 seeking renewal/reissue of the Passport already issued earlier and thus, they stand on a different footing than the first time applicants.

12. Further, the respondent authority while considering the application submitted by the petitioners herein for reissue of Passport have issued letter seeking clarification as to the pendency of the Criminai Case which is stated to have been registered/ pending before the concerned authority/Court for the authorities to consider the reissue of the Passport.

13. Though the respondents while seeking clarification have only mentioned the pendency ol the Criminai Case registered against them with the police authority/pending before the concerned Court and have sought for clarification as to the stage of the case, however did not mention therein the conditions which the petitioners are required to comply in terms of notification utde GSR No.570(E) dated 25.09.1993 to get the passport reissued.

14. If only the authorities while issuing the 'notice of clarification' to the applicants on the aspect of pendency of the cases, had specified the conditions which they are required to comply if a Criminal Case is pending for them to comply as I I _*- 6 specified in the GSR No.570{E) and also the conditions imposed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.263 of 2024 as extrzrcted above' the applicants/ petitioners herein could have subrnitted their explanation comprehensively in one go with all the required information to enable the authorities to consider the application for reissue of PassPort.

15. Instead, the respondent authorities by issutng notlce ln a cryptic manner have sought for clariircation from the applicants on pending Criminal Case without indicating therein the further compliance required to be undertaken by them at their end, has resulted in applicants approaching this Court by fi1ing the present Writ Petitions for getting direction issued to the concerned authorities to consider their applications subject to compiying with the conditions mentioned in the order dated 1O.O4.2O24 in W.A. No.263 of 2024. This approach on the part of the respondent authorities in the considered view of this Court has resulted in this Court being flooded with number of Writ Petitions being hled by each of such applicants and this Court issuing more or iess same direction in every case' which could have been avoided if only the respondent authorities while issuing notice seeking clarification have specilied tLLe conditions to be complied with as detailed by this Court in order in W.A. 7 No.263 of 2024 and also in the Notification issued by the Central Government uide C.S.R. No.570(E) dated 25.08. 1993.

16. However, the respondents for the reasons best known to Ihem have neither chose to follow the orders of this Court nor conditions imposed ulde G.S.R. No.570 issued in the year 1993 while seeking clarification.

17. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should be directed to comply with the condition Nos.1 to 6 as extracted hereinabove by submitting the explanation/ further explanation to the clarification notice to enable the authorities to consider petitioners application for reissue ol the Passport.

18. Further, the respondents are hereby directed that hereafter while issuing clarification notice, should also indicate therein the conditions which the appiicants are required to comply while submitting their explanation to the clarification notice in the event of any Criminal Case is filed/ pending consideration before the Criminal Court, to enable the authorities to consider the explanation submitted while taking a decision either to reissue or refuse to issue Passport by passing 8 a reasoned order enabling the applicants to avail the remed5'of Appeal Provided under the Act' i9. Subject to the above observation and direction' these Writ Petitions arc disposed of. No costs' As a sequel, miscelianeous petitions pending if any shall st and closed. //TRUE COPY// o'-" = "sBTf$f REe,siRlI \- SECTION OFFICER Delhi. Secunderabad 500003, Telangana. 1 . Regional Passport- Office, Hyderabad D.No. 8-2-215 to 219, Kummarguda, 2. The Secretary Ministry of External Affairs, Union of lndia, South Block New 3. One CC to SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRI M. TITUS FINNY, Advocate IOpUC] 5. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS BHUSARAPU, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICTTOR Geruenel Or 7. One CC to SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOL|C|TOR GENERAL 8. Two CD Copies rNDrA [OPUC] IoPUCI To PSK. LSW HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 c 3 .:t1q$r;i f6 o^ c 10 ,liir ( COMMON ORDER WP.No.92,150,180 of 2025 AND 37183 OF 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS \u*@ 3.-'