The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.MALLIKARJUN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.RAJESH REDDY, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No. 11599 of 2025 This writ petition is filed questioning the actior-r o{- respondent No.2 in refusing the passport service to petitioner ulde order dated 13.O8.2024 in Applicarion No.HY1076570215524 in view ol pending criminal proceedings uide Cr.No. l2O of 20lB under Section 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC on the file of Adibarla police station in C.C.No.344 of 2Ol9 on the file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnarn and consequently pravcd to direct the respondents to renew the passport ol the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Rajesh Reddy, learned Standing counsel for Ccntral Government on behalf of respondents.

3. The petitioner submits that he is a passport holde,; ulde Passport No.M1070997 issued on 14.08.20 14 u.hich gor- expired on 13.08.2024. As such petitioner applied lor renewal of passport uide ApplicaLion No. Hy 10765TO215524 clated 13.08.2024. The said applicatron was refused bv l resllondent No.2 on the ground that there is criminal case in Cr. No. l2O of 2O l B pending against the petitioner. [t is submitted that the criminal case against the petitioner is cir.il in nature and petirioner has also filed quash petitioner in Crl.P.No.3943 of 2022 before this Court r+.hicl.r is pending foi- consideration. euestioning thc inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the present urrit petition is filed.

4. Ii is pertinent to note that in the application form of thc petitioncr for rdnewal of passport dated 19.O4.2024, whicl-r is signcd by the petitioner, the pctitioner affirmed that he has not bcen charged with criminal proceedings before an], Court ol lan in India. Thercafter, on 29.O4.2024, the Regional passport Office has issued letter to the petitioner calling for explanation regarding pending criminal cases. Accordingll,. petitioner visited the Regional Passport Officc and submitted all the Cetails of pending criminal cases agalnst him and requested for issuance of passport. It is also pertinent to note that in the material papers filed b_i, the petitioner, the FIR No.12O of 2O 1B dated 10.05.2018 u,zrs enclosed wherein the petitioner was shown J .rs Accused No.2. petitioner has made application for renewal of passport on 19.04.2024 by knowing ven, rvell about the pending criminal case.

5. Learned standing counsel for respondents has placed a copy of instructions issued by Regional passport Officer, Hyderabad wherein it is stated that the police authorities have submitted an adverse report on 22.04 .2024 with remarks that petitioner was involved in Cr.No.120 of 2018 under Sections 447, 422 read with Section 34 of IPC on the file of Adibatla police Station and a charge sheet was aiso fiied in C.C.No.344l2O1g.lt is also submitted that the said fact about pending criminal case \ ras suppressed by the petitioner in his application rvhich attracts action under Section 6(2)(f) of the passports Act,

1967. Secrion 6(2)(f) reads as lollows: "6, Reftrsql of passp orts, trauel documents, etc. (2) Subject to the other prouisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or trauel document for uisiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub_section (2) of section 5 on anA one or more of the :l follouing grounds, and on no other ground, narneiy: - (fl that proceedinqs in respect cf an offence alleged to haue- been committed by tlrc appLicant a.re pendinq before a ciminal court in India."

6. Learned stan ding counsel would also refer to paragraph Nos.7, B and 9 of instructions which reads as "7. That, tlrc same has further been claifi.ed in the Office Memorandum /y'o. VI/ 405/ 04/ OB/ 2024 dated 06. 12.2024 issued bg the JoinL Secretarg (PSP) & ChiefPassport Officer, PSP Diuision, Mirtistry of External Affairs, Gout of India at its Para-B that "there is no such prouision for seeking permission/ NOC from the court concerned fol issuance of passport; instead it is permission to depart from India". B. It is not out of place to mention here that in similar case, th.e diuision bench of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombag in Wnt Petiticn (L) No. 1576 of 2024 dated 08-04-2024, held that "the contenti.on raised on behalf of the respondents th.at the Petitioner's case falls under the prouisions o.f Section 6(2)) and also stands couered bg the notification issued bg 5 Central Gouemment dated 25-O8-1993. In these circumstances, the Petitioner tuould be required to make applications to the criminal courts uhere the crlses are pending for re-issuance of a Passport. We thus, find that the relief as praAed for bg the Petitioner in the present proceedings cannot be granted".

9. In similar case, this Hon'bLe High Court uide Wit Appeal No. 829 of / 2024 held that "the direction to reneut the passport has been issued bg the learned Single Judge in contrauention of tlrc Statutory proutsion. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of Law. It is accord.ingly quashed. Hotueuer, libertg is reserued to the respondent to approach the cnnt-inal court for expeditious disposal of the case pending against him" and utrit appeal uas disposed off."

7. Thereafter, the Regional .Passport Office, after verif,\'ing the detarls of the pending criminal cases, since , the passport cannot be issued as per the rules, a detailed refusal letter has been issued to the petitioner

13.O8.2024 advising petitioner to submit acquittal order or permission to depart from India from the concerned Court rvhcre the criminal proceedings are pending for further pr()cess ol his application. It is further submitted that I ( I 6 \ "--.1 -- petltioner. $,ithout follou ing the advice, has chosen to fiie the present u,rit petition.

8. The issue in this ri'rit petition is that petitioner, at the time of making application ought to havc stated true fact,s before the respondent authoritics, vvhich has not been done by the petitioner. After liling of charge sheet in C.C.No.344 l2Ol9, pctitioner ought to have liled fresh application disclosing truc fac[s, rather t_han cor-rtesting the present writ petition.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant relief to the petrtioner ur-rder Article 22-6 al Constitution of India anci accordingly the writ petition stands disr^rissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner to file fresh application before thc respcndent authorities lor reneu.al oI his passport. Misceilaneous petitlons. pending, if any, shall stand closed. Hor.r,cver, thcre shall bc no order as to costs SD/. A. SRINIVASA RE TANT REGIST IS DDY RAR //TRUE COPY// \: SECTION OFFI CER To, 2 J BSR GJP One CC to SRI K NIALLIKARJUN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI K.RAJESH REDDY, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. [OPUC] Two CD Copies J^r HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.11599 of 2025 I HE s r4 ) ,) \ IOJULM $ t- a \-\ /\^ \i i'r ., ,.,_.., r \--.---7 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS