The court ruled that the revocation of a passport cannot be justified solely based on pending criminal cases, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to travel as a fundamental liberty.

ORDER :

(Surepalli Nanda, J.)

1. Heard Mr.L.Aravind Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.K.V.V.Vedantha Chary, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 8.

2. Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

"To issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in revoking the passport bearing No. K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 issued to the Petitioner herein alleged to have been revoked vide letter dated 10.12.2021 without following the due process of law in intimating the petitioner herein and not providing an opportunity of hearing and subsequent non conspiration of the response of the petitioner vide representation dated 01.04.2022 is as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to restore the passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 and renew the same."

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under:

The petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad and he holds passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013. The petitioner is an employee working in the United States of America since 2006 and had been resident there since then. Petitioner got married to one Ms.A.Lohitha on 18.10.2013 and she joined the company of the petitioner in USA in the month of March 2014 to lead a marital life and the petitioner had been blessed with baby boy born on 10.03.2017. The petitioner along with his wife had to travel to India in the month of March, 2015 for renewal of their VISA. The petitioner however travelled back to United States on 29.03.2015 with a fond hope that his wife and son would join him later on 18.04.2015. But curiously however, the petitioner's wife did not join the petitioner and instead filed a frivolous complaint on 20.09.2018 with allegations of domestic violence under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of Women's Police Station, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, wherein a crime was registered as crime No.182 of 2018. In response to petitioner's letter dated 28.02.2022 addressed to the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad, on coming to know that steps have been initiated for impounding of petitioner's passport, whereunder the petitioner sought the present status pertaining to the impounding of petitioner's passport bearing No. K7908337 the petitioner received a response on 18.04.2022 through mail from the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad informing the petitioner that the petitioner's passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 was revoked by the Consulate General of India, New York on 19.05.2021 and the petitioner was advised to approach them in this regard.

It is further the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner received another letter dated 26.05.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit a detailed explanation on the ground that the petitioner's passport had been revoked by the Consulate General of India (CGI) New York on 19.05.2021 and the petitioner was residing illegally in USA without a valid travel document since last one year and the petitioner was therefore called upon to furnish explanation. Petitioner vide his representation dated 01.04.2022 requested for restoring Passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 and to renew the same. But however, the request of the petitioner had not been considered as on date and aggrieved by the same; the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, in particular, paras 3 to 8 reads as under:

"3. It