IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Sannith Reddy Mandhadi – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & another – Respondents
W.P.No.2422 OF 2024
Decided on : 26-02-2024
Passport Renewal - Criminal Proceedings - Passports Act, 1967, Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to renew his passport, which was not being renewed due to pending criminal proceedings against him. The petitioner argued that the pendency of criminal cases should not lead to denial of passport facilities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court opined that pendency of criminal cases should not be a ground to deny passport facilities and that the Respondents cannot refuse passport renewal on this ground. The Court cited various judgments and legal provisions to support its finding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the pendency of criminal cases can be a ground to deny passport renewal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980 do not provide for denial of passport facilities based on the pendency of criminal cases. The Court also cited judgments emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to travel abroad.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Respondent to consider the petitioner's explanation and pass appropriate orders for passport renewal, subject to certain conditions.
ORDER :
Heard Mr.N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.K.V.V. Vedantha Charya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :
3. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition in brief, are as follows:
a) The petitioner was issued Passport bearing No. L8717578 on 29.04.2014 which is valid up to 28.04.2024. As the petitioner’s passport was about to expire, an application for its renewal was filed vide File No. HY7075704548723 dated 22.08.2023 and the 2nd respondent, vide letter in Ref.No. SCN316068225/23 dated 28.10.2023 sought clarification from the petitioner for issuing the renewed passport on the ground of adverse police report, that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case vide FIR No. 465 of 2022 and that the said crime is now registered as C.C.No. 3674 of 2022.
b) Thereafter, as the file was still pending with the 2nd Respondent, the petitioner has approached the office of 2nd Respondent on 19.01.2023 and then the petitioner was informed that his passport would not be renewed until the finalization of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C No. 3674 of 2022.
c) Furthermore, the Passport Authority can refuse to issue the passport only if an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of application for offences involving moral turpitude and sentenced for imprisonment of not less than two years. Even as per the Police Verification Report and the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent, the criminal case registered against the petitioner is pending trial, that too with regard to an offence of trespass. Therefore the 2nd Respondent cannot keep the petitioner’s application pending for renewal of passport nor can refuse to grant such renewal. Aggrieved by the action of 2nd respondent in not renewing the passport of petitioner made vide File No. HY7075704548723 dated 22.08.2023, the present Writ Petition is filed.
PERUSED THE RECORD.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
4. A bare perusal of the contents of the notice dated 28.10.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent herein indicates that the petitioner is involved in Crime Number 465 of 2022 under Sections 427, 447, 506 read with 34 IPC of P.S. LB Nagar in C.C.No.3674/2023 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District Court, and the petitioner is called upon vide the said notice of the 234 IPC of P.S. LB Nagar in C.C.No.3674/2023 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District Court, and the petitioner is called upon vide the said notice of the 234 IPC of P.S. LB Nagar in C.C.No.3674/2023 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District Court, and the petitioner is called upon vide the said notice of the 234 IPC of P.S. LB Nagar in C.C.No.3674/2023 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District Court, and the petitioner is called upon vide the said notice of the 234 IPC of P
The main legal point established is that the pendency of criminal cases should not lead to denial of passport facilities, as per the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980, and suppo....
The pendency of a criminal case does not justify the refusal of passport services, as individuals retain their right to travel freely, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.