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.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows:

“to pass an order or direction more so in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 in refusing passport services to the Petitioner vide Order dated 30.01.2024 in Application No.HY1076194300324 on account of pendency of Case No.472 of 2017 on the file of the Hon’ble XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as illegal, high handed and arbitrary apart from being in violation of the rights of the Petitioner under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Order dated 30.01.2024 in Application No HY1076194300324 and direct the Respondent No.2 to renew the passport of the Petitioner bearing No.Y7410331 for the period of 10 ten years.”

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

a) It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having valid passport bearing No.Y7410331 issued on 09.08.2023 which is valid up to 08.08.2024. As the petitioner’s passport was due to expire, an application for its renewal was filed vide Application No.HY1076194300324 dated 25.01.2024 and the 2^nd respondent, vide letter in Ref. No.HY1076194300324 dated 30.01.2024 sought clarification from the petitioner for issuing the renewed passport on the ground of adverse police report, since the petitioner was involved in a Criminal Case vide C.C.No.472 of 2017 under Sections 420 , 468, 471 of the IPC on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

b) The impugned order dated 30.01.2024 was issued by the respondent No.2 intimating to the petitioner that it has been decided by the competent authority to refuse passport services to the petitioner under Section 5 (2) (c) of the passports Act, 1967, to be read with Section 6 (2) (f), in view of pendency of Court case against the petitioner vide C.C.No.472 of 2017 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Section 420 , 468, 471 of IPC and further respondent No.2 sought for, acquittal order from the case or obtain permission to travel abroad from the same Court, where the criminal case is pending for re-considering the petitioner’s application. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 30.01.2024 issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, in particular, paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8, read as under: -

“6) In reply to para 6, it is submitted that admittedly there is criminal case pending, whenever such pendency is brought to the notice of Passport Issuing Authority, provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 are attracted which are reproduced herein under for ready reference of this Hon'ble Court:

“Section 6 (2) of the Act-Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Passport authority shall refuse to issue a Passport or a travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (C) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a crimina