IMPORTANT POINT
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on pending criminal cases without prior court cognizance.

ORDER:

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the direction of the 2nd respondent in relying upon the Gazette notification GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993 and insisting the petitioner to produce acquittal order/quash order/NOC from the concerned court vide the letter of the 2nd respondent dated 22.07.2024 for renewal of the petitioner’s passport vide file No.VS1076730069124 and passport No.M0551472, as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and contrary to the settled law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the High Courts in various cases and also violation of Article 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to renew the petitioner’s passport No.M0551472 for a period of one year without any conditions and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. The petitioner herein is a President of Sylom Blind Centre, which is registered at Kakinada. The Petitioner was issued passport bearing No. M0551472 on 04.08.2014 and the same is valid till 03.08.2024. Due to the influence of the political leaders, a false criminal case was registered against the petitioner vide Cr.No.277/2021 on 07.11.2021 at Annavaram Police Station for the offence under Section 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC. Later, the said crime case was numbered as C.C.No.97 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Prathipadu. The petitioner herein was arrayed as accused No.4 in the said C.C. and the same is pending.

4. The rival people also filed a false case against the petitioner vide Cr.No.1 of 2021 on 10.02.2021 at Cyber Crime Police Station, CID, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh for the offence under Section 153B (1)(C), 505(2), 295A, 124A, 115 IPC r/w Section 66F of IT Act. But, so far the charge sheet in the said case is not filed.

5. The petitioner received an invitation for an international meeting which is going to be held on 26.09.2024 at Greenville Convention Center, Greenville, South Carolina, USA. Since, the passport of the petitioner was expired on 03.08.2024 he applied for renewal of the passport. After receipt of the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport, the 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 22.07.2024 to the petitioner directing him to furnish Court acquittal order/quash orders/no objection certificate Court as per Gazette Notification GSR 570(E), dated 25.08.1993 in respect of Cr.No.277/2021 from the concerned Court.

6. While granting bail in Cr.No.1 of 2021, the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur imposed a condition to surrender the passport of the petitioner and the same was returned to the petitioner. Further the petitioner filed a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.835 of 2024 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur seeking permission to travel abroad and the same was allowed. After receipt of the letter from the 2nd respondent dated 22.07.2024, the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondents that he would get permission from the Court for travelling abroad and there is no need to obtain any NOC for renewal of passport in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon