Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/18968/2026 of Gurram Venkateswararao, Vs Union of India, on 24 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 25 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18968/2026 Between: 1. GURRAM VENKATESWARARAO,, S/O G. DURGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RIO D.NO.5 VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
APHC010356332026
IN THE H
(
TUESDAY
THE HONOURAB
WRIT
Between:
1. GURRAM VENKATE
ABOUT 55 YEARS, O
VIJAYAWADA, KRISH
1. UNION OF INDIA,
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
TILAK MARG,NEW D
2. THE REGIONAL PA
OFFICE, VIJAYAWAD
CENTRAL,D.NO.27-3
ROAD,VIJAYAWADA-
3. PALAVAYI DASU, S/O
D.NO.4-17-29, DEV
VIJAYAWADA.
(P
CR.NLO.276/2020, II T
Petition under Article
circumstances stated in th
pleased topleased to issue
W.P.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
, THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA
T PETITION NO: 18968/2026
ESWARARAO,, S/O G. DURGA RAO
OCC. BUSINESS, RIO D.NO.5-6/4-10, K
HNA DISTRICT - 520 001, ANDHRA PR
...PE
AND
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,MINIS
S (PSP DIVISION),PATIALA HOUSE
ELHI -110 001.
ASSPORT OFFICER, ,REGIONAL PA
DA,4TH FLOOR, STALL NO.7(2),'35
7-158,
GOVERNORPET,
- 520 002.
O ANANDA RAO,AGED ABOUT 44 YE
VAIAH STREET, LAMBADIPETA,CHITT
ROPOSED
AS
COMPLAINA
TOWN P.S., VIJAYAWADA)
...RESPON
226 of the Constitution of India praying e affidavit filed therewith, the High Co a Writ of Mandamus or any other approp RC,J
No.18968 of 2026
ATI
O, AGED
KT ROAD,
RADESH
TITIONER
STRY OF
ANNEXE,
ASSPORT
52, 351(2),
M.G.
EARS,R/O
TINAGAR,
ANT
IN
NDENT(S):
g that in the
urt may be
priate Writ,
RC,J
Order or Direction (a)declaring the proceedings dated 29.06.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent without having regard to the subsisting stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.4141/2020 granted by this Hon'ble Court as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to process
and
renew
the
Petitioner's
passport
bearing
File
No.VJ2077562865925 in a time frame as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court, having regard to the Petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Passports Act and the abnormal and unexplained delay of over fourteen months in dealing with his renewal application, and (b)
permit the Petitioner to travel abroad to the United States of America during the month of August, 2026, for the purpose of attending his son's engagement, subject to such conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to impose. (c) pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 pleased to direct Respondents 1 and 2 to process and renew the Petitioner's passport bearing File No.VJ2077562865925, and grant interim permission to the Petitioner to travel abroad to the United States of America during the month of August, 2026, to attend his son's engagement ceremony, pending disposal of this Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KARUMANCHI INDRANEEL BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.ALEKHYA TADASINA(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
RC,J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondents in not considering and approving his passport application for re-issuance/renewal on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.4141 of 2020 pending trial before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, disregard to the fact that this Court granted stay of all further proceedings of the said C.C.
2. Heard Sri Karumanchi Indraneel Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Alekhya Tadasina, learned Central Government Counsel. No representation for respondent no.3.
3. Sri Karumanchi Indraneel Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that though this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.4141 of 2020 pending disposal of the Crl. Petition No.4950 of 2024 filed for quashment of the said C.C. vide its orders dated 22.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.4950 of 2024, the authorities are not considering and approving the petitioner’s application for renewal of passport on the ground of pendency of C.C. against him. Accordingly, prayed to allow the petition.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Alekhya Tadasina., learned Central Government Counsel, on counter submitted that upon receipt of adverse RC,J
Police Verification Report regarding involvement of the petitioner in C.C.No.4141 of 2020, the authorities had rightly declined to process his application for renewal of passport and the petitioner has to obtain no objection certificate and seek permission to travel abroad from the Court wherein the criminal proceedings are pending. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, which outlines the legal grounds upon which the passport authority must or may refuse to issue a passport, travel document, or make an endorsement for visiting foreign countries, envisages that Section 6(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: - (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India., (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.,
(c) that 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 of India with any foreign country; (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; (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (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; RC,J
(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.
6. Section 6(2)(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trail in a criminal court. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, has been considered on several occasions by the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts 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 depend on no objection being given by the concerned court.
7. In the instant case, charge sheet was filed, the same was taken cognizance of by the concerned Court and was numbered as C.C.No.4141 of 2020. The record shows that the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.4950 of 2024 for quashment of the said C.C. Admittedly, a coordinate bench of this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in the C.C. till disposal of the Criminal Petition. Since C.C. has been stayed by this Court, pendency of Criminal Proceedings cannot be a ground for the passport authorities to reject renewal of the passport.
RC,J
8. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner filed for re- issuance/renewal of his passport, if otherwise satisfy all the other requirements. The petitioner shall obtain permission of the Court wherein criminal proceeding is pending whenever he intends to travel abroad. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 25th August, 2026
RR Note: Issue Certificate Copy by 31.08.2027. B/o RR