IMPORTANT POINT
The pendency of a criminal case is not a valid ground to deny reissuance of a passport, and the right to possess a passport and travel abroad is protected under the Passports Act, 1967 and the Constitution of India.

ORDER

Surepalli Nanda, J. - The petitioner approached this Court seeking the relief as under:

'to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.2 authority in addressing a letter No.HY1075722230323, dated 06.10.2023, saying that Petitioner application for reissuing the passport by replacing the correct name of the wife of the petitioner i.e., Divya Rakshitha Naineni and the present address of the petitioner i.e., Sky Villa I-3202, Plot No.22 to 24, Sy.No.83/1, My Home Bhooja, Opp. T-Hub, Raidurg-500032, Cyberabad-Ranga Reddy, Telangana, will be considered only after submitting acquittal order from the concerned court, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondent No.2 authority to reissue the passport in favour of the petitioner immediately in place of his old passport bearing No.R0633919, by entering the present name shown above of the wife of the petitioner and the present address as shown above, considering the application of the petitioner dated 27.06.2023, and to pass such other order or orders.'

2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in response to the notice, dated 12.12.2023 issued by Regional Passport Officer, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation, dated 03.01.2024 giving details about the Crime No.180 of 2020 registered against the petitioner. Further, vide Letter No. HY1075722230323 dated 06.10.2023 a reference is made to Crime No.180 of 2020 registered and pending against the petitioner and he was informed that his request of seeking passport made by him vide file No.HY1075722230323, dated 28.08.2023 would be considered upon the petitioner submitting acquittal order from the case or obtaining permission to travel abroad from the same Court. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide notice dated 12.12.2023 certain clarifications were called for from the petitioner in response to petitioner's request for issuance of passport facilities to the petitioner pertaining to Crime No.180 of 2020 registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 143, 147 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on the file of P.S. Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.932 of 2021 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 03.01.2024 which has been acknowledged by the office of the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad. But, further, no action has been initiated on the said application of the petitioner, dated 28.08.2023 seeking re-issuance of the passport by entering the correct name of the wife of the petitioner i.e., Divya Rakshitha Naineni by incorporating the present address of the petitioner as under;

'correct name of the wife of the petitioner i.e., Divya Rakshitha Naineni and the present address of the petitioner i.e., Sky Villa I-3202, Plot No.22 to 24, Sy.No.83/1, My Home Bhooja, Opp. T-Hub, Raidurg-500032, Cyberabad-Ranga Reddy, Telangana."

Hence, the present Writ Petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

3. This court opines that pendency of criminal case against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny re-issuance of Passport to the petitioner and the right to personal liberty would include not only the right to travel abroad but also the right to possess a Passport.

4. It is also relevant to note that the Respondents cannot refuse the re-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 and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2020 Crl.L.J.(SC) 572 in 'Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of