1. This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief:
"...to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in refusing to renew the petitioners passport bearing No.M5034433 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to renew the petitioners above mentioned passport and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner herein is a retired Station House Officer and is having a passport bearing No.M5034433. The said passport was expired on 30.12.2024. Prior to the expiry, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 16.12.2024 to the 2nd respondent seeking for renewal of his passport for a further period of ten years. While things stood thus, on 26.12.2024, the petitioner herein received a communication, stating that basing upon the adverse police verification report a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.279/2021 for the offences punishable under S.420, S.486, S.467 r/w 34, IPC and S.5 of APPDFE Act on the file of Chirala Rural Police Station. Pursuant to which, the petitioner herein submitted his explanation on 07.01.2025 stating that no charge is framed, no arrest warrant is pending, no summons are issued. Even after receipt of the said explanation, the 2nd respondent neither considered nor issued passport to the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the referred Criminal Case is still in F.I.R. stage. As such, S.6 or S.10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar v. The Union of India and others; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022

5. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Home furnished written instructions, wherein it is stated that a criminal case in Cr. No.279/2021 has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under S.420, S.386, S.467 r/w 34, IPC and S.5 of APPDFE Act. It is further submitted that investigation was completed and criminal charges were made out and case is being charged against the petitioner as Accused No. A3.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also placed written instructions, wherein it is stated that the said criminal case is in the crime stage only. Further it is stated that the petitioner deliberately suppressed about the crime case. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.01.2025. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also relied upon a Judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik v. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others, (2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP))

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader for Home and also perused the material placed on record.

8. It appears that the respondent No.2 is under the premise that the petitioner herein is involved in a criminal case and he applied for passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that at present only one criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the same is at the crime stage i.e., Cr. No.279 of 2021 on the file of the Chirala Rural Police Station. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner is contrary to the law.

9. For more understanding, S.6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is extracted hereunder:
"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 S.5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: -
(a) that the a