Rights cannot be denied based on unproven allegations; due process is essential for denial of passport issuance.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI NIRANJAN, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI AJAY, ASST.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER :v . APHC010303312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE '

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15203/2025 Between:

Kadali Asha Kiran ...PETITIONER AND The Union Government Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PECHATHY RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT

2.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Niranjan, learned Panel counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 3 & 4.

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd

2.

respondent in refusing to issue a passport to the petitioner in pursuance of his application No.VSI067236571924 dated 23.12.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner made an application for the issuance of a passport vide

3.

File No.VSI067236571924 dated 23.12.2024. Due to adverse police verification report pointing out involvement of the petitionerin Crime No.194 of 2019 of Achanta Police Station numbered as C.C.No.355 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fi Class at Palakollu, a shortfall notice dated 04.06.2025 was issued to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s name is not shown as one of the accused in C.C.No.355 of 2021. A copy of the charge sheet is filed along with the writ petition under Ex.P.4. He would submit that mere pendency of a criminal case is not an impediment for issuance of a passport, and Section 6 (2)(f) would not be attracted to the case at hand. However, the respondent authorities. rejected the issuance of a passport to the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on the instructions would submit that at the time of registering Crime No.194 of 2019, the petitioner is a Juvenile. Since the petitioner is a Juvenile, the police filed a final report before the Juvenile Justice Board, Eluru vide SR.No.7131 of 2021. The Juvenile Justice Board has to take cognizance of the offence. Learned counsel would also submit that after the Board has taken cognizance, since the petitioner has not attained majority, it will be referred to the regular jurisdictional Court.

6. Thus, as seen from the instructions, the jurisdictional Court/board has not taken cognizance against the petitioner. In fact, a perusal of Ex.P.4, the name of the petitioneris not included as one of the accused. Unless and until the guilt is proved, the petitioner cannot be denied issuance of a travef document.

7. Section 6 of the Act deals with the refusal of passports, travel documents etc. Section 6 (2)(f), which is relevant, is extracted hereunder;

I.

A, 6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of 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 criminal court in India;

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of ^lndia\ observed that the right to travel, abroad is a part of personal liberty and the right to