WP/32467/2025 of PAVULURI CHINNA KOTESWARA RAO Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 30 November 2025

1. PAVULURI CHINNA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 10-406B, B.C COLONY, JENDA CHETTU EDURU VEEDHI, GUTTIKONDA VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT A.P-522413

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS E BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI 110001

2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D. NO. 27- 37-150, GOVERNOR PET, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520002 ANDHRA PRADESH. RPO.VIIAVAWADA@MEA.GOV.IN

3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIDUGURALLA POLICE STATION PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH .

...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 Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of

JS,J W.P.No.32467/2025

WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the action of the 2nd respondent in not processing the petitioner's passport application bearing File No. VJ2065831697425 on the ground of a pending criminal case C.C. No. 62 of 2019 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Piduguralla as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, irregular, and in violation of the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and the Rules framed there under, as well as Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice Consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to process the petitioner's passport application and issue the passport in accordance with law, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court 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 to grant interim direction to direct the 2nd respondent to process the petitioner’s passport application and issue the passport in accordance with law, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court forth with pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. DILIP JAYARAM S (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

2. GP FOR HOME

JS,J W.P.No.32467/2025

The Court made the following ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

2. The petitioner is an Indian citizen and applied for passport on 27.10.2025 vide Application No.VJ2065831697425. 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.424 of 2018 on the file of Piduguralla 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 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi1.

4. At the hearing, Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, submits that the concerned Police with regard to Crime No.424 of 2018 on the file of Piduguralla Police Station filed charge sheet on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla vide C.C. No.62 of 2019. 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.

1 2013 (15) SCC 570

JS,J W.P.No.32467/2025

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 Non-Bailable Warrants. Once the criminal Court has 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: 01.12.2025 KAS

JS,J

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 32467/2025

Dated: 01.12.2025 KAS