Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Kadiyala Sudhakar Naidu – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.21371 of 2024
Decided on : 01-10-2024
Passport - Writ Petition - Passport Act Section 6 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Passport Act, particularly Section 6(2)(f), and GSR 570(E), emphasizing the need for a No Objection Certificate when a criminal case is pending, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner's right to apply for a passport.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a passport but was denied due to a pending criminal case. The petitioner argued that the case was not active and that the denial infringed on his fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal case was not pending in any court, thus the requirement for a No Objection Certificate was not applicable. The court emphasized the fundamental right to travel.
Issues: Whether the denial of the passport application based on a pending criminal case was justified when the case was not actively pending in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere existence of a criminal case does not justify the denial of a passport if the case is not pending in court, affirming the right to travel.
Result: The court directed the authorities to issue the passport without objection to the pending criminal case.
ORDER:
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 action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and directing the petitioner to obtain a permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending vide letter dated 19.09.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application reference No.ARN24-1010414319 dated 04.09.2024 of the petitioner and issued passport to the petitioner without raising any objection to the criminal case in C.C.No.520 of 2014 and without insisting to obtain permission from the Court the criminal case is pending and to pass such other order or orders…”
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. Petitioner herein has applied for passport vide application reference No.ARN24-1010414319 to the 2nd respondent on 04.09.2024. Then, the 2nd respondent has issued a letter dated 12.09.2024 calling for clarification for issuance of the passport to the petitioner. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the 2nd respondent on 19.09.2024. But, the 2nd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner vide letter dated 19.09.2024 on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner.
4. In the year 2014, during the Municipal elections, a criminal case vide Cr.No.57 of 2014 under Section 171(E), 188 IPC was lodged against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is trying to bribe the voters by distributing the sarees to the voters. Thereafter, the said criminal case was numbered as C.C.No.520 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penukonda. Thereafter, the said case was transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttaparthi in the year 2017. After the said transfer, the JFCM, Puttaparthi sent a letter to the JFCM, Penukonda requesting to send the original Mahajarnama. The said C.C.No.520 of 2024 is neither pending before JFCM, Penukonda nor before JFCM, Puttaparthi. Hence, the petitioner cannot make any application to obtain necessary permission under Section 6(f) of the Passport Act.
5. Pursuant to the petitioner’s explanation, Respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 19.09.2024 stating that the petitioner has suppressed the material information regarding pendency of criminal case in his passport Application. Then petitioner was requested to furnish either order of Acquittal or quashment of FIR or No Objection Certificate from the concerned Court as per Gazette Notification GSR 570(E), dated 25.08.1993 along with an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authorities that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuation of the proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for passport to visit U.S.A. for his son’s convocation. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying the issuance 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.
7. 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.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India and others, W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024. In view of the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submit
AI
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and the denial of a passport based on a non-pending criminal case is unconstitutional.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and passport issuance cannot be denied solely based on pending criminal cases without proper legal basis.
The issuance of a passport can be denied if there are pending criminal proceedings against the applicant, requiring them to seek permission from the relevant court.
The mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify the denial of passport issuance, reaffirming the right to personal liberty and travel under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Passport issuance or renewal is contingent upon production of orders from the concerned Court permitting the applicant to depart from India when a criminal case is pending before a Court.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on pending criminal cases without proper legal justification.
The right to travel must balance with judicial processes, ensuring fair treatment in passport issuance amidst pending criminal cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
