IMPORTANT POINT
The pendency of a criminal case should not be a ground to deny the issuance of a passport, as it violates the right to personal liberty and the right to travel abroad, as established by the Passports Act, 1967, and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

ORDER

Surepalli Nanda, J. - Heard Mr.Komatireddy Venkatanarasimha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the relief as under:

'To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in refusing the passport services to the Petitioner by issuing the Letter vide Ref.No. SCN/316398827/23 dated 05/12/2023 pursuant to the Application No.HY1075969254923 dated 14.11.2023 on account of pendency of C.C.No 77/2022 filed U/s 420 and 34 of IPC on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda 1 Town as illegal arbitrary and in violation of the rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Letter vide Ref.No.SCN/316398827/23 dated 05/12/2023 and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case'.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, the petitioner herein had applied for issuance of passport vide Tatkaal Application bearing No.HY1075969254923 dated 14.11.2023 and the same was dispatched on 15.11.2023 via Speed Post Tracking Number PP45525075IN to the 2nd respondent -Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad, along with all the requisite documents and fees prescribed, with a request to issue the passports. The same was not considered by the respondents on the ground that, the petitioner is accused in criminal case vide C.C.No.77 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner herein is accused in C.C.No.77 of 2022 in Cr.No.477 of 2021 under Section 420 and 34 of IPC pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda I Town. Therefore, the petitioner sought to issue necessary directions to the respondents for consideration of petitioner's application for issuance of passport.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that, respondents cannot refuse the issuance of passport of the petitioner on the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner and the said action of the respondents is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 05.12.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner, petitioner was called upon to submit explanation/clarification's pertaining to the criminal case pending against the petitioner for issuance of passport facilities to the petitioner.

7. It is further case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 14.12.2023, the petitioner submitted his explanation in response to the notice dated 05.12.2023 issued to the petitioner and requested for one month time to get clearance letter from Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the said explanation of the petitioner dated 14.12.2023 submitted by the petitioner in respect of the notice dated 05.12.2023 had not been considered as on date and further that the petitioner is intending to travel out of the country from 27.02.2023 to 04.03.2024 for the period of 6 days.

8. It is specifically averred at para No.7 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition as under:

'I submit that the petitioner is planning a trip to Canada for the purpose of travelling from 27.02.2024 to 04.03.2024 and as such the letter vide ref.No.SCN/31698827/23 issued by the respondent No.2 will create hindrance in the process of the petitioner's travel. The travel period of the petitioner is of 6 days and as such the petitioner is willing to give undertaking to the re