APHC010003402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 194/2025 Between:

Medapati Devi Manikanta Anjaneya Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. CHETAN PONNURU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. B APPARAO The Court made the following:

The Court made the following:

1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in rejecting renewal of passport with File No.VSA076789046524 dated 17.10.2024 with a reason that upon police verification report is not clear as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case by directing to get a proof of clearance of criminal case as illegal, arbitrary, discriminating unjust against Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India against the rules of Passport Act and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to renew the passport by considering the application File No.VSA076789046524 dated 17.10.2024 .”

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. Petitioner herein is a passport holder bearing passport No.Z3299737 issued on 04.06.2015, valid upto 03.06.2025. Vide application dated 16.07.2024, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same.

4. Respondent No.2 herein had issued a letter dated 17.10.2024 seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport as it is evident from the police verification report that the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.470 of 2020 on the file of I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram and the same is pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Vizianagaram vide STC No.58 of 2021. Though the petitioner had explained with regard to pendency of the criminal case, the 2^nd respondent did not consider for renewal of the passport. Hence, the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the complainant was lodged based on false allegations and except that, there is no offence. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India and others, W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024. In view of the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated 04.07.2024, wherein it is stated that as per the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, when a criminal case is pending against the applicant in any Criminal Court, the applicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection

Certificate (NOC) from the Court below where case is pending along with GSR 570(E) undertaking. Hence, if the Court gives permission to the applicant to travel abroad and directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E).

9. It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case, W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023, the petitioner is required to obtain ord