WP/34258/2025 of SHAIK GAYASUDDIN Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 8 December 2025

1. SHAIK GAYASUDDIN, S/O. HAJI DASTIGEER SHAIK , AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 75-6-21, MASIJD STREET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, 23-B, JANPATH ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI.

2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO. 27-37, 158 GOVERNORPETA, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA.

3. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

...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 to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not issuing the passport to the petitioner vide application Reference No.25-1065711101 on the ground that criminal case is pending as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary violation of Article 14,16 and21 of the constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice and direct the

JS,J W.P.No.34258/2025

2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for issue of Passport and 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 Please to direct the 2nd respondent duely considering the passport application Reference No.25-1065711101 of the petitioner without reference to the Criminal Case, pending disposal of the Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. JS,J W.P.No.34258/2025

The Court made the following ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. The petitioner made an application vide Reference No.25-1065711101 and File No.MA1065081242923, dated 16.02.2023, 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 Nos.549 of 2022 on the file of Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada and 99 of 2024 on the file of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada.

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 further submits that the 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.”

JS,J W.P.No.34258/2025

4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that charge sheets were filed in connection with Crime Nos.549 of 2022 and 99 of 2024 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada vide C.C. Nos.5360 of 2023 and 422 of 2025 respectively. Since the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance, the petitioner has to approach the said Court.

5. 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.

6. 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

Date: 09.12.2025 KAS

JS,J

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

JS,J W.P.No.34258/2025

WRIT PETITION NO: 34258/2025

Date: 09.12.2025 KAS