WP/6608/2023 of Miryala Bhoopathi Rao Vs The Union of India on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDAWRIT PETITION0.5608 0F 2023

Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar,learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing forrespondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. G. Sampada, learnedGovernment Pleader for Home appearing for respondentNo.3 and perused the record.learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing forrespondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. G. Sampada, learnedGovernment Pleader for Home appearing for respondentNo.3 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayeras under:

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or directionmore particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the respondents innot renewing/reissu ing the passport of the petitionervide passport No.G7532379 issued by respondentNo.2 only on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.B16of 2018 on the file oF the Court of Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Class at Karimnagar as illegal,arbitrary and violative of articles of 14 and 300-4 ofConstitution of India."

3. It is the speciFic case of the petitioner that the petitionerapplied for renewal/reissue of the [passport ]and the slot wasregistered on 23.O3.2023, no orders have been [passed ]on theapplication filed by the [petitioner ]Seeking renewal/reissue of -

passport on the ground of pendency of criminal cases registeredagainst the petitioner. Hence the [present ]writ [petition.]against the petitioner. Hence the [present ]writ [petition.]

4. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing forrespondent No.3 submitted written instructions of theCommissioner of Police, Karimnagar stating that though thepetitioner applied for renewal of his Indian Passport, after itsexpiry vide File No.HY7070992420718, however basing on thereport of the Special Branch field enquiry officer who verified theantecedents of the petitioner and informed that the petitionerhas been involved in Crime No.2O0/2017 for the offences underSections 42O,4t9,46s,467,468,471,120 (b) and 506 IPC onthe file of Karimnagar - II Town Police Station, the RegionalPassport Authorities did not grant the renewal/reissue ofpassport to the petitioner.

5, The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2ndrespondent submits that upon the petitioner making a freshapplication seeking renewa l/re issu a nce of [passport ]the samewould be considered in accordance to law within reasonableperiod.

6. This Court opines that Respondent No.2 cannot denyissuance of Passport on the ground that aforesaidCriminal Cases are pending against him. It is also relevantto note that the Apex Court in reported in 2O2OCrt.L.J.(SC)572 in "VANGALA KASTURI RANGACHARYULUv. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION" had an occasionto examine the provisions of the Passports Act, pendencyof criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport canbe only in case where an applicant is convicted during theperiod of five (O5) years immediately preceding the dateof application for an offence involving moral turpitude andsentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant isfacing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein wasconvicted in a case for the offences under Sections - 42O,468, 47L and 477A read with 12OB of the IPC and alsoSection - 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Against which, anappeal was filed and the same was dismissed. Thesentence was reduced to a [period ]of one (O1) year. Thepetitioner there,n had approached the Apex Court by wayof filing an appeal and the [same ]is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held thatPassport Authority cannot refuse issuance of the passporton the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus,the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issuethe passport of the applicant without raising the objectionrelating to the [pendency ]of the aforesaid crimina! case.

7. The Apex Court in the [judgment ]reported in 2013 (15) SCCpage 570 in "SUMIT MEHTA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI" atpara 13 observed as under:

"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, heis entitled to al! the fundamental rights including theright to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of theConstitution of India."is entitled to al! the fundamental rights including theright to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of theConstitution of India."

8. The Apex Court in 'MENAKA GANDHI vS. UNION OFINDIA AND ANOTHER" reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, and in"SATISH CHANDRA VERMA V. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) ANDOTHERS" reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 very clearlyobserved that the right to travel abroad [is ]a [part ]of a [personal]liberty curtailed in accordance with law onlv and not on the subiective satisfaction of anyone.be [just, ]fair and reasonable.

The procedure must also

9. In the [judgment ]dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra PradeshHigh Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in "GANNIBHASKARA RAO v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER" atparas 4, 5 and 6, it is observed as under:

"This Court after hearing both the learned counse!notices that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, inCriminal Appeal No.1342 ot 2OL7, was dealing with aperson, who was convicted by the Court and hisappeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court.The conviction was however stayed. In thosecircumstances also it was held that the [passport]authoritv cannot refuse the "renewal" of theDassport, This Court also hoids that merely because a person is anaccused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" orpossess a passport. As per our iurisorudence evervoerson is oresumed innocent unless he is orovenOU ittv There ore. tthe merfa[?] tthat a cnmtn[e]aAceis [pendinq ]aqainst the [person ]is not a [qround ]toconclude that he cannot [possess ]or hold a oassoort.Even under Section 1O [(d) ]of the Passports Act, thepassport can be impounded onlv if the holder hasbeen convicted of an offence involvinq "moralturDitude" to imprisonm nt of not less than twoyears. The use oF the conjunction 'and' makes it clear thatboth the ingredients must be [present. ]Every conviction isnot a ground to impound the [passport. ]If this is thesituation [post- ]co n vi cti o n, in the ooinion of thisCourt, the [pendencv ]of a case / cases is not a [qround]to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of apa sspo rt.

The second issue here in this case is about the applicabilityof Section 6(2Xe) of the Passport Act. In the opinion ofthis Court that section applies to issuance of a freshpassport and not for renewal of a passport It is alsoclear from GSR 57O(E) which is the Notificationraliarl rrn.rn hw tha losrnoA r.ar rncal fnr tharesDondents and is referred to in the counteraffidavit. This NotiFication clarifies the[procedure ]to befollowed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against aperson whom the criminal cases are pending. Thisnotification permits them to approach the Court and theCourt can decide the [period ]for which the [passport ]is to beissued. This is clear from a reading of the Notificationissued. Clause (a) (i) states if no [period ]is [prescribed ]bythe Court the passport should be issued for one year.Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court [gives]permission to travel abroad for less than a year but hasnot prescribed the validity period of the [passport, ]then thepassport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii)states if the order of the Court [permits ]foreign travel formore than one year but does not specify the validity of thepasspci't, the passport should be issued for the period oftravel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also berenewed on Court orders. Therefore, a readinq of GSR570(E) makes it verv clear that to oive exceotion orto exemDt applicants from the riqour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brouqht intooneraf ion The i<srranre.T f fha ittc<6r.|rt rrid ihaner nd nf ite waliditw: thert[nrl n]f[t]fala arthus under the aeqis of and control of the Court."

10. Takang into consideration, the aforesaid facts andcircumstances of the case and duly taking intoconsideration the law laid down in the various Judgments(referred to and extracted above), this Court deems itappropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing thepetationer to apply afresh seeking renewal/reissue of passport of the petitioner withan one (O1) week from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shallbe considered by the 2nd respondent duly taking intodate of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shallbe considered by the 2nd respondent duly taking intoconsideration the observations in the various Judgments,(referfed to and extracted above), in accordance to lawwithin two weeks thereafter upon receipt of freshapplication by the petitioner seeking renewal/reissuanceof passport No.G7532379 and duly communicate thedecision to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is at libertyto call for any information or documents if required fromthe petitioner and the petitioner shall [provade ]the same tothe 2"d respondent. However, there shall be no order asto costs.within two weeks thereafter upon receipt of freshapplication by the petitioner seeking renewal/reissuanceof passport No.G7532379 and duly communicate thedecision to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is at libertyto call for any information or documents if required fromthe petitioner and the petitioner shall [provade ]the same tothe 2"d respondent. However, there shall be no order asto costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this WritPetition, shall stand closed.

SD/.V.KAVITHAASSISTANT REGISTRARVSECTION OFFICER

,TRUE COPY//

To.'-'1. Th" Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs' Shastry Bhawan' New Delhi' Unionof lndia'2. The Regional [Passport ][Officer' ][D No ][S-2-215 ][to ][219' ][Kummarguda']Secunderabad.3. The Commissioner [of ][Police. ][Karimnagar Commissionerate' ][Karimnagar']Karimnagar [[District.]]

Karimnagar [[District.]]+ ii"e CCio SRI [RAVI ][KUMAR ][VADLAKONDA ][Advocate ][IOPUCI]5. One CC [to ][SRI ][GADI,b"RAViiT.I ][XUI.4NN, ][DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL]--OF lNDIA, High [Couri ][io|.'ir'1st't" ][of ][Te-langana ][at ][Hvderabad-[9P.UC1 ]6. Two ccs [to ][cp ][F6i'ibju-El'uiirn ][c"rft ][for ][the'state ][of ][Telangana ][at]HYderabad [OUT]7. Two CD [CoPies]+ ii"e CCio SRI [RAVI ][KUMAR ][VADLAKONDA ][Advocate ][IOPUCI]5. One CC [to ][SRI ][GADI,b"RAViiT.I ][XUI.4NN, ][DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL]--OF lNDIA, High [Couri ][io|.'ir'1st't" ][of ][Te-langana ][at ][Hvderabad-[9P.UC1 ]6. Two ccs [to ][cp ][F6i'ibju-El'uiirn ][c"rft ][for ][the'state ][of ][Telangana ][at]HYderabad [OUT]7. Two CD [CoPies]

BSR.GJP \q/GJP \q/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

ORDERWP.No.6608 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS

1o [ccg'&4]Wz-+t^tt't

$9[ATATS]?$2[oL)0gttBt.i..t"'.r!.tt''