ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the State.

2. A Writ of Mandamus was sought for against the respondents particularly respondent No.3 in not renewing passport of the petitioner (Old passport No.P 3737855) as per the application / File no.VJ2076740391126, dated 27.04.2026 merely on the ground of registration of criminal case against the petitioner vide FIR No.188 of 2022 of Tenali III Town Police Station, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 apart from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court.

3. The facts narrated in the affidavit are that the passport was issued initially on 19.12.2016 vide passport No.P.3737855 which is scheduled to expire on 18.12.2026 and therefore, an application was made for renewal to the 3^rd respondent vide File No.VJ2076740391126, dated 27.04.2026. The petitioner contends that as the operator not sought for any information regarding pendency of criminal case, the same was not mentioned in the application and this is merely an over sight and it is only after issuance of passport, the said criminal case is registered in the year 2022.

4. In the affidavit, it is averred that one Mr.Anuvalasetti Ramesh, filed a complaint against the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused No.2, in Crime No.188 of 2022, dated 19.06.2022 on the file of Tenali III Town Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 407, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. After the discrete inquiry by the petitioner regarding status of the crime, it is found that as on today, it is still in the investigation process and no charge sheet is filed which can be construed that as of today, the learned Magistrate did not taken cognizance of the offence.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the passport is deemed to be expired on 18.12.2026 and the application is made for renewal, for which, the 3^rd respondent has issued a notice dated 05.05.2026 for clarification, pursuant to which the petitioner appeared personally on 07.05.2026 and also submitted his explanation on 08.05.2026, which was received by the 3^rd respondent.

6. Learned counsel would further states that at paragraph No.7 of the affidavit that the petitioner has already booked tickets for the proposed travel i.e., on 30.06.2026 to attend the NRI Vasavi Function schedule to be held at Boston, Stte of Massachusetts, United States of America from 03.07.2026 to 05.07.2026 and he was invited as a Chief Guest. Unless the passport is renewed at the earliest, the petitioner would be put to prejudice and the very action of not renewing the passport would be infringing Article 21 of the Constitution of India apart from acting contrary to the very purport of Section6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 and the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities should act as per the statute and not otherwise, and seeking clarification without any legal basis and denying the renewal of the passport is contrary to the very statute and contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, where Right to Travel is embedded in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, this Court is of the opinion that it would be necessary to refer to Section 6(2) (f) of the Passport Act.

“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 cour