WP/18563/2026 of VENKATA BALA SUBRAHMANYAM GOTTIPATI Vs UNION OF INDIA on 9 July 2026

1. VENKATA BALA GOTTIPATI,AGED NEAR JAMES HIGH

1. UNION OF INDIA, EXTERNAL AFFA JANPATH, NEW DE

2. THE REGIONAL P 158 4TH FLOOR, S VIJAYAWADA, N T

3. THE STATION HO DISTRICT. Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue a Wri nature of Writ of Mandam granting/ issuing the pas VJ2066433793526 dated and violative of principles the Passport Act and rul 300A of the Constitution E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL RIT PETITION NO: 18563/2026 SUBRAHMANYAM GOTTIPATI, S/ ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 17-26-9/1, H SCHOOL CHIRALA, BAPATIA DIS AND , THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, IRS, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BH ELHI -110011. PASSPORT OFFICER VIJAYAWADA STALIN CENTRAL, GOVERNORPET T R DISTRICT A P 520002 OUSE OFFICER, CHINAGANJAM P ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High t or Order or Direction more particu mus declaring the action of the respon ssport in favour of the petitioner app d 20/02/2026 due to pending crime is s of natural justice and contrary to t es there under and also violative of A n of India and consequentially direct th DESH

LAPATI /O BRAHMAM BOSE NAGAR TRICT ...PETITIONER MINISTRY OF HAWAN, 23-D A, D.NO 27-37- T, M G ROAD, .S, BAPATLA SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be ularly one in the ndent no.2 in not plication vide No illegal, arbitrary he provisions of rticle 14, 21 and he respondents to process the application and issue the passport in favour of the petitioner and to 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 to pass an interim order by directing the Respondent No 2 to consider the passport application of the Petitioner vide Application No VJ2066433793526 dated 20/02/2026 for issuance of fresh passport to the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PETA GNANA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that the passport authorities are not issuing passport on the ground of registration of criminal case against him.

2. Heard Sri Peta Gnana Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkata Nagaraju, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that charge sheet is yet to be filed and mere registration of Crime would not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings before a Criminal Court. Unless a Criminal Proceedings are pending before a Criminal Court as envisaged under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authorities cannot deny renewal of the passport. Thus, the action of the passport authorities is not justified. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Central Government Counsel would submit that pursuant to the adverse police verification, the authorities declined to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of passport. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.

5. Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 is germane and the same is extracted hereunder:

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; (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 Vagala Venkata Siva Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has categorically held that, as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant in India.

8. In view of the observations held above, unless charge sheet is filed and the same is taken cognizance of by the concerned committal Court, mere registration of a crime would not amount to pendency of criminal proceeding, which empowers the passport authorities to withhold issuance or renewal of passport. In the instant case, the submissions made by both the learned counsel would indicate that charge sheet is yet to be filed. Thus, Section 6(2)(f) would not attract to the facts of the case.

9. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the authorities to issue the passport, if it meets all the necessary requirements, other than the objection regarding pendency of crime. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 10.07.2026 MP

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION No.18563 of 2026 10.07.2026

MP