IMPORTANT POINT
The fundamental right to travel abroad should not be deprived except by a just, fair, and reasonable procedure, as per the principles established by various judgments.

JUDGMENT

SUREPALLI NANDA, J. - Heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri K.V.V.Vedantha Chary, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct respondent No. 2 to release the Passport bearing No. S9246767 to the Petitioner forthwith.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The Petitioner is a business man and got married to Smt. Haritha on 23/5/1991 and during the wedlock a son A. Sai Sreyash Reddy and daughter Manish were born and both the children are majors. Due to disputes between the petitioner and his wife, the petitioner's wife has left the matrimonial home along with the children in the year 1998.

b) Subsequently, the petitioner filed Divorce OP and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed FCA before this High Court and there are several other cases pending between the petitioner and his wife.The petitioner's son has filed a false complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered as FIR No.45 of 2018, dtd. 30/1/2018, and was charge sheeted vide CC.No.2745 of 2018 which is pending for trial.

c) The petitioner is holding a valid passport vide No. S9246767, which had expired and the petitioner has applied for renewal. The 2nd Respondent has renewed and issued the passport valid from 18/1/2019 to 17/1/2029. Consequently, the respondents have issued letter dtd. 31/1/2019 to the petitioner seeking clarification with regard to the pendency of the Crime against the petitioner and sought for explanation. Further the 2nd respondent also insisted the petitioner to surrender the passport, the petitioner has complied with the instructions and accordingly surrendered his passport.

d) The 2nd respondent issued the surrendered certificate dtd. 14/12/2019, but the 2nd respondent has recorded the reasons for surrender of passport as "Surrender of Ordinary Passports in lieu of obtaining Diplomatic/Official passports" and the petitioner herein is a business man and not a government employee or member of parliament or judicial officer etc., to obtain diplomatic/official passport. Nevertheless, the petitioner was informed that, before traveling abroad he has to take permission from the concerned jurisdictional court as per the circular issued by the Central Government. e) However, the petitioner is now intending to visit his sisters who are residing in America and the petitioner has approached the respondent authorities for release of passport. It was orally informed to the petitioner by the respondent authorities that the passport will be released only if the petitioner obtains permission from this court as the criminal case is still pending.

f) It is pertinent to mention here that as per clause 2(a) the passport can be issued to every such citizen for a specified period of time as per the order of the court and if no such time period is specified the passport should be issued for a period of one year. g) Therefore, keeping the passport of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the settled principles of law. Petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 1342/2017 (Same has been extracted below). Hence, this Writ Petition.

4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1 and 2, in brief, is as under:

a) The respondents' office had received an adverse police verification report dtd. 28/1/2019 stating that the petitioner is involved in criminal case CR No. 45/18 u/s 443, 323, 354, R/W 341, vide CC No. 274/18 PT and immediately, the respondent office has issued a show cause notice vide no. SCN/308183681/19 dtd. 31/1/2019 to furnish explanation regarding suppression of CC No. 274/18 and to impound the passport number S9246767 dtd. 18/1/2019, as per Passports Act, 1967.

b) The petitioner through letter dtd. 14/2/2019, responded to the show-cause notice