THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.24907 OF 2025

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in not renewing the petitioner’s passport bearing No.L5567066 by issuing the impugned letter No.HY1075506193723, dated 10.06.2024 by rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner dated 30.05.2024 vide File No.HY1075506193723, dated 26.06.2023, the present writ petition is filed. A consequential prayer is made to direct respondent No.2 to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing Passport No.L5567066.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The petitioner herein has submitted an application No.HY1075506193723, dated 30.05.2024 with respondent No.2 with a request to renew his passport. Vide letter No.HY1075506193723, dated 10.06.2024, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that it has received adverse police verification report and involvement of the petitioner in Cr.No.No.578 of 2016 and sought clarification.

4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had laid charge sheet against him. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.578 of 2016 on the file of learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Now, he contends that he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. Therefore, he sought to issue necessary directions to the respondents for consideration of his application to renew his passport. The petitioner submits that he has to go to USA to see his daughters and grandchildren.

5. On the ground of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner, respondent No.2 is not renewing the passport to the petitioner. The said action of respondent No.2 is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967 and also the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation1

6. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (Supra) had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an

1. 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572

applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections - 420, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B of the IPC and also Section - 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C.

7. In view of the above, mere pendency of criminal case is no ground to decline renewal of passport. Further, the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial Court in concluding trial in the aforesaid C.C. Therefore, he is standing on better footing than the petitioner in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (Supra). The petitioner herein sought to issue necessary directions to respondent No.2 for consideration of his application for issue of passport. Thus, on the ground of pendency of the above criminal case, passport cannot be denied to the petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the aforesaid application No