Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/33378/2025 of NARAYANA YEDIDA Vs THE UNION OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA on 10 December 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 33378/2025 Between: 1. NARAYANA YEDIDA, S/O ANANTA KOTI SATYANARAYANA YEDIDA,
APHC010644742025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 33378/2025
Between:
1. NARAYANA
YEDIDA,
S/O
ANANTA
KOTI
SATYANARAYANA
YEDIDA,
R/O.H.NO
3-236,
K.IILINDULPARRU,
BLOCK3,
IRAGAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI, 534 217, ANDHRA
PRADESH, INDIA
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE UNION OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY
OF
EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS
SOUTH
BLOCK,
SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI, INDIA.
2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT
OFFICE, GJ3M-I-X9M,VENKATESWARA THEATRE COMPLEX, MG
RD, OPP. RADIO STATION, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH
520610.
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRAGAVARAM POLICE STATION, IRAGAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI, 534 217, ANDHRA
PRADESH, INDIA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased issue a writ, order, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of respondent no.2 in issuing the Proceedings vide SCN/321426499/25 dated 26-04-2025 there by refusing to renew the passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application no.
VS4075746071923 dated 04-09-2023 on the ground of pending FIR against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and against Article 14 and 21 of our Indian Constitution and consequently to direct respondent no.2 to renew the passport for the petitioner pursuant to his application no. VS4075746071923 dated 04-09-2023 and to pass IA 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 pleased direct Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's application no.
VS4075746071923 dated 04-09-2023 for Renewal of passport in view of explanation dated 04-01- 2024 submitted by the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition pending and to pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to Permit the Petitioner for Amendment of the Cause Title For the Respondent No.2 From: 2.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, GJ3M+X9M,Venkateswara Theatre Complex, MG Rd, opp.
Radio Station, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520610. To: 2. III! The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Vuda Layout Colony, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem Vuda Colony, Visakhapatnam-530009, Andhra Pradesh, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. JAYA PRAKASH MADASU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
2. GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
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:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel and Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
2. The petitioner made an application vide Reference No.23-1010963963 and File No.VS4075746071923, dated 04.09.2023, seeking to issue fresh passport to the petitioner. Pursuant to his application, the respondent authorities have not processed his application due to the submission of an adverse verification report by the Police i.e., his involvement in Crime No.168 of 2022 and also in Crime No.176 of 2022 on the file of Iragavaram Police Station.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere pendency of criminal cases is not a bar to issue passport to the petitioner and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order, dated 26.09.2024, passed by this Court in W.P. No.18328 of 2024.
4. At the hearing, Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel and Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submits that the concerned Police with regard to Crime No.168 of 2022 filed charge sheet vide CC No.1634 of 2022 on the file of 1st A.J.C.J.-Cum- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, and also filed CC No. 1716 of 2022 on the file of 1st A.J.C.J.-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, arising out of Crime No.176 of 2022 of Iragavaram Police Station. Since the competent criminal Courts have taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Courts.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.383 of 2024, considered the said aspect of cognizance by the Court in a criminal case vis-à-vis an application made for the issuance of a passport and observed as follows: <16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
17. Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of >proceedings pending before a criminal Court?, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.=
6. In the case on hand, the Criminal Court has taken cognizance and issued summons. Once the criminal Court have taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Court and make an appropriate application.
7. Apart from the above discussion, in the case on hand, the petitioner without approaching the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court, has straightaway approached this Court. The petitioner was expected to submit his explanation. This Court does not find, in the facts of this case, infringement of right, if any, of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned.
8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned jurisdictional criminal Court and make an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the learned jurisdictional Court concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per the Passports Act and the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dated: 11.12.2025 RSD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 33378/2025
Dated: 11.12.2025
RSD