THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI 2025:APHC:3769

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT APPEAL NO:803/2023

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the

appellant, Ms.T.Alekhya, learned Central Government Counsel appearing through virtual mode for the respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing

for the respondents 3 and 4.

2. The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13833 of 2023. The writ petition was filed for direction to the respondents to renew the petitioner’s passport, being aggrieved from their action in not considering the application for renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, in which

the petitioner was facing trial.

3. The petitioner had Indian Passport to go abroad. The validity period of the passport expired on 24.06.2023. A case in Crime No.78 of 2018 under Sections 342, 509, 323 and 34 I.P.C, is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner had applied for

renewal by paying the requisite fee. Vide letter dated 10.01.2023, he was asked to submit explanation pursuant to the police verification report regarding pendency of the criminal case. He submitted his explanation on 03.02.2023 but the passport was not renewed.

4. The learned Single Judge, by the order under challenge dated 14.06.2023, dismissed the writ petition. However, giving liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Calendar Case No.447 of 2018 and seek necessary orders.

5. The learned Single Judge took the view that, in view of pendency of the criminal case and the petitioner facing trial, as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, and the law settled in such circumstances, the petitioner had to approach the criminal court and seek No Objection Certificate from the said Court. The learned Single Judge also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021 SCC OnLIne Sc 3549 and observed that in the said case, it was held that the authorities cannot refuse to renew the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. But, in the case of the petitioner, he was facing trial. It was not a case of pendency of the criminal appeal. Consequently, it was held that the judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra)

was not applicable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that, to get the passport, to travel abroad, is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the conditions under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and the Rules, apply to the grant of the passport i.e. for the first time but not for its renewal. He further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu(supra), directed to grant renewal, even during pendency of the criminal appeal, where the accused had been convicted and sentenced. Whereas in the present case, trial is pending and there is no conviction, so the petitioner is to be presumed to be innocent and renewal of passport cannot be refused. He placed reliance in the cases of, Ravulapally Ravindranath v. Union of India, Writ Appeal No.704 of 2024, Satish Chandra Verma lps v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.3802/2019 dated 09.04.2019, Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2013(15) SCC 570, Immidi Subrahmanya Krishna Butchi Raju v. Union of India, W.P.No.17458 of 2024 dated 10.09.2024, and Ravikanti Venkatesham V. The Union of India and another⁶, to contend that on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, the renewal of the passport cannot be refused.

7. Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, submits that the judgment under appeal does not call for any interference. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, the Rules and the Office Me