The fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be deprived based on pending criminal cases, and the Passports Act requires fair and just procedures for deprivation of this right.

ORDER :

Heard Mr Pulla Rao Yellanki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr G.Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader Home appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in not renewing the petitioner’s passport No. L1275522 in spite of having submitted an application dated 16.05.2023 vide File No. MA1075321574923 on the ground that adverse police verification report against the petitioner that he was involved in three criminal cases those are 1) Crime No.269 of 2022 under section 420 I.P.C, Section 7 and 8 of ECA, 2) Crime No.270 of 2022 under section 420 I.P.C and section 7 and 8 of ECA and 3) Crime No. 310 of 2022 for offence punishable under section 420 I.P.C and 7 and 8 ECA had been registered against the petitioner on the file of the P.S. Paloncha as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, in violation of principles of natural justice and violation of articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to renew the petitioner’s passport No.L1275522 by permitting the petitioner to travel abroad for a period of one year without any conditions.

3. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the petitioner is permanent resident of Paloncha Town, Bhadradri – Kothagudem district and the petitioner’s father had established rice mill and based on certain policies the surrounding needy people come to their rice mill to get rice since long back. The police officials used to visit petitioner rice mill upon the presumption that the petitioner has purchased the PDS rice from the dealer. Based on false information, the then S.I of police registered three cases against the petitioner 1)Crime No.269 of 2022 under section 420 I.P.C, section 7 and 8 of ECA, 2) Crime No.270 of 2022 under section 420 I.P.C and section 7 and 8 of ECA and 3) Crime No.310 of 2022 for offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C and 7 and 8 ECA.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner never purchased any PDS rice from anybody but, the police registered false cases against the petitioner and the same are pending for filing of charge sheet. It is further the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner intended to attend the “Graduation Ceremony of his son in St. Albans Cathedral, Hertfordshire” scheduled between 5th-14th September, 2023 and when the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for renewal of passport for the purpose of attending the Graduation Ceremony of his son, the 2nd respondent stated that he cannot renew the petitioner’s passport on the ground that the petitioner is involved in criminal cases. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5. This Court opines that the respondent passport authority cannot deny the renewal of passport of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal cases registered against the petitioner i.e. (1) Crime No.269 of 2022 under section 420 I.P.C, Section 7 and 8 of ECA, 2) Crime No.270 of 2022 under section 420 I.P.C and section 7 and 8 of ECA and 3) Crime No. 310 of 2022 for the offences punishable under section 420 I.P.C and 7 and 8 ECA on the file of the P.S. Paloncha since freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.

6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under:

“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

7. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC onl