Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Bailraju Balaraju vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2025
APHC010085902025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 4740/2025
Between:
1. BAILRAJU BALARAJU, S/O. SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O. D.NO.2/126, HANUMAN TEMPLE, BOMMAVARAM VILLAGE 8C,
POST, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH. NOW RESIDING IN KUWAIT. REP BY HIS
G.P.A. HOLDER. LAVIDI GANGU RAJU
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK.
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. THE EMBASSY OF INDIA, KUWAIT REP BY ITS AMBASSADOR
DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE, ARABIAN GULF STREET, P.O. BOX 1450,
SAFAT-13015, KUWAIT.
3. PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
PASSPORT OFFICER, PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW
DELHI - 110 001.
4. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL
PASSPORT OFFICER, 4TH FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO. 27-
37-158, GOVERNORPET, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA- 520002
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, OBULAVARIPALLI POLICE
Page 2 of 8
SRS,J
W.P.No.4740 of 2025
STATION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter vide No.KUW/CONS/OBJ/4148/2024,
dated 30.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 in not renewing the
passport vide No.M6714975 of the petitioner on the ground of registration of
criminal case against the petitioner vide F.LR.No.44 of 2024, dated
03.03.2024 on the file of Obulavaripalli Police Station, Annamayya District as
illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Passport Act 1967, judgments of
the Honourable Supreme Court and this Honourable High Court and
consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to renew the
passport of the petitioner vide No.M6714975 for a period of 10 (Ten) years
and issue the passport to the petitioner and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the Letter vide No.KUW/CONS/OBJ/4148/2024, dated 30.04.2024
issued by the respondent No.2 by directing the respondents to renew the
passport of the petitioner vide No.M6714975 for a period of 10 (Ten) years as
per application No.24-2001815318, dated 17.04.2024 and issue the passport
to petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT
2. GP FOR HOME
Page 3 of 8
SRS,J
W.P.No.4740 of 2025
The Court made the following:
:: ORDER :
:
Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri T. Niranjan, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 1 to
4 and Sri Ajay, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for
respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner, resident of Bommavaram Village, Obulaaripalli Mandal,
Annamayya District, moved to Kuwait in 2003 for livelihood. The petitioner
holds a passport bearing No.M6714975, issued from 20.06.2015 to
19.06.2025. The petitioner made an application vide No.24-2001815318,
dated 17.04.2024, to respondent No.2 to re-issue/renew the passport. Due to
an adverse police verification report, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated
30.04.2024 (Ex.P1), calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation.
Another notice dated 25.09.2024, was issued to the petitioner. However, the
petitioner did not respond to the aforementioned notices. The petitioner has a
Civil ID, and the same will expire by 02.05.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, to obtain a Civil ID,
the applicant must possess a passport with at least two years’ validity.
Learned counsel also filed an additional affidavit of General Power of Attorney
holder of the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the petitioner will come
down to India in August, 2025 and take necessary steps in connection with
STC No.93 of 2024, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Railway Kodur.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted the written
instructions of respondent No.5. A perusal of instructions would indicate that a
case in Cr.No.44 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Section 9(2) of AP
Gaming Act (Cock Fight) of Obulavaraipalli PS, was registered against the
Page 4 of 8
SRS,J
W.P.No.4740 of 2025
petitioner and 12 others, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused
No.12. A notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C was served on the petitioner on
03.03.2024. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on the file of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Koduru on 16.03.2024, and the
same was numbered as STC No.93 of 2024. The jurisdictional Magistrate has
taken cognisance.
5. Sri T. Niranjan, learned Standing Counsel, would submit that, because
of the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, respondent No.2 did
not renew the passport of the petitioner.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central
Bureau of Investigation1, observed that the refusal of a passport can only
occur in cases where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years
immediately after receipt of the date of application for an offence involving
moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years.
7. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 deals with a situation where
the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court.
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2,
observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty and the
right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed following law and not on
the subjective satisfaction of anyone.
9. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in
Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others3, observed as
under:
“The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it
nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the1
2020 Crl.L.J (SC) 572
2
(1978) 1 SCC 248): AIR 1978 SC 597
3
LAWS 2019(2) SCC Online SC 2048
Page 5 of 8
SRS,J
W.P.No.4740 of 2025individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by
extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private
life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities
which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this
freedom is a genuine human right.”
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi4,
observed as follows:
“The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As
a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental
rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.”
11. In Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India5, a learned Single Judge of
this Court observed as follows:
“4. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of
2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and
his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction
was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the
passport authority cannot refuse the “renewal” of the passport.
5. This Court also holds that merely because a person is an
accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot “hold” or possess a
passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent
unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case
is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he
cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the
Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has
been convicted of an offence involving “moral turpitude” to
imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction4
2013 (15) SCC Page 570
5
2023 (4) ALT 406
Page 6 of 8
SRS,J
W.P.No.4740 of 2025„and‟ makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every
conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the
situation post-conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a
case / cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the
surrender of a passport.
6. The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of
Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that
section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a
passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred
to in the counter affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be
followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person
whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to
approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the
passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification
issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the
passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the
order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year
but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the
passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the
order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but
does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be
issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport
can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR
570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt
applicants from the rigour of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E)
has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the
period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis
of and control of the Court.”
12. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that criminal case vide STC
No.93 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway
Page 7 of 8
SRS,J
W.P.No.4740 of 2025
Koduru, is pending against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as
accused No.12. The petitioner, due to his employment, is in Kuwait and his
passport will expire by 19.06.2025. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of
the petitioner, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner will come down
to India in August, 2025 and will take necessary steps regarding STC No.93 of
2024. The statement made on behalf of the petitioner by the General Power of
Attorney holder is recorded.
13. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition
is disposed of, directing the learned respondent No.2 to renew the passport of
the petitioner for two (02) years, enabling the petitioner to get a Civil ID. The
petitioner shall come down to India, as per the averment made on oath in the
additional affidavit in August, 2025 and approach the jurisdictional Court and
make an appropriate application before the Court for further orders. No order
as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 17.04.2025
Note: Issue C.C by 21.04.2025
B/o.
TVN
Page 8 of 8
SRS,J
W.P.No.4740 of 2025
98
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.4740 OF 2025
Date : 17.04.2025
TVN
[ad_1]
Source link