ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner moved this Court for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings dated 23.04.2026, vide Letter Ref.No.SCN/1054709267/26, refusing to renew the passport of the petitioner in pursuant to the application made through tatkal vide No.26-1057118645 dated 18.04.2026 on the ground of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. The contentions put forward by the petitioner in the affidavit are that he was earlier issued passport on 30.01.2017, vide passport No.P7382260, for a period of 10 years, which is now to be expired on 29.01.2027 and in that pursuit, for extension, an application was made by the petitioner through tatkal, vide application No.26-1057118645. After the process conducted by the respondents, a show cause notice dated 23.04.2026 was issued by the 2^nd respondent, calling for an explanation to furnish proof of clearance of case and clarify in-person at the Passport Office and the required documents were elicited in the show cause notice, providing 30 days from the date of receipt.

4. In tune to the said show cause notice, the petitioner on 04.05.2026 approached the 2^nd respondent, informing that the charge sheet was filed in respect of Crime No.350 of 2024 and till date no cognizance is taken by the Magistrate and more so, the charge sheet submitted was returned and till date it is not resubmitted by the concerned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance so far and in similar circumstances, keeping in view of ingredients of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, this Court in similar circumstances in W.P.No.13133 of 2025 in a case of Ravi Ramesh v. Union of India, 2015 Live Law AP 88 by Order dated 09.05.2025, was pleased to hold that when jurisdictional Court has not taken any cognizance and mere pendency of crime is not a bar for renewing/re-issuing the passport.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would impress the Court that the said principle is no more res integra and the said principal is still resonating, yet the 2^nd respondent without any application of mind, in a mechanical manner rejected the petitioner’s application, thereby infringing Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which enables a Right to Travel to every citizen with certain restrictions and the very action is contrary to Section 6(2)(f) of the Act.

Section 6(2)(f) of the Act is relevant is extracted hereunder:

“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 foreigncountry 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;

7. Learned counsel would further submit that in furtherance to the said principle, mere pendency of the criminal case is not sufficient to deny the renewal of a passport, but the fact of cognizance being taken by the competent Magistrate needs to be taken into consideration and strictly adhered to.

8. In continuation of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam and others, AIR 1967 SC 1836 wherein it is held that the Right to Travel is indeed a fundamental right and the same cannot be arbitrarily and illegally denied by the State and that no person can be deprived of his Right to Travel except according to procedure established by law.

9. In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013