Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Dhana Purna Chandra Rao Atluri vs The Union Of India on 6 February, 2025
APHC010035422025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2092/2025
Between:
Dhana Purna Chandra Rao Atluri ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH B R P SEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT.
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2092/2025
ORDER:
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 by declaring the action of the
2nd respondent in not issuing passport to the petitioner pursuant
to the application dated 30.12.2024 vide File
No.VJ2067254756524 on the ground that bail bonds are in
force even after the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal
cases as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of
Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2 nd
respondent to issue passport to the petitioner in the interest of
justice and to pass such other order or orders…”
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner completed his
graduation. For pursuing higher studies in abroad, the petitioner applied for
passport. The said application was rejected on the ground that criminal cases
are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted an
application for issuance of passport on 30.12.2024. In reply, the 2nd
respondent issued a letter dated 03.01.2025 intimating that an adverse police
verification report was received alleging that two criminal cases i.e.,
Cr.No.17/2021 on the file of Managalagiri Town Police Station and Cr.No.206
of 2023 on the file of Rajam Police Station were registered against the
petitioner. In reply to the said letter, the petitioner submitted his explanation
stating that no criminal cases are pending against the petitioner as on the date
3
of submission of the application and the charge sheet with regard to Cr.No.17
of 2021 was filed and the same was registered as C.C.No.190 of 2022 on the
file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge
(Jr. Division) Mangalagiri. After the trial, a judgment dated 22.07.2024 was
passed in the said C.C. by acquitting the petitioner herein. So also, charge
sheet with regard to Cr.No.206 of 2023 was filed and the same was registered
as C.C.no.248 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam.
After the trial, a judgment dated 24.09.2024 was passed in the said C.C. by
acquitting the petitioner herein. In view of the same, no cases are pending
against the petitioner. The bail bonds in C.C.No.190 of 2022 expired on
22.01.2025. But the 2nd respondent is not considering my application for
issuance of passport. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on date no criminal
cases are pending against the petitioner before the Court of law. As such,
Section 6 or Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the
petitioner in the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment
rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of
India and others.1
5. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1
and 2 also placed written instructions, wherein it is stated that ten crimes were
1
MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022
4
registered against the petitioner. Out of the ten cases, the petitioner was
acquitted in four cases i.e., Cr.No.17 of 2021, Cr.No.206 of 2023, Cr.No.216
of 2019 & Cr.No.52 of 2020 and five crimes were compounded against the
petitioner i.e., Cr.No.219 of 2019, Cr.No.406 of 2019, Cr.No.31/2020,
Cr.No.27 of 2020 & Cr.No.126 of 2020 and one case i.e., Cr.No.167 of 2021
on the file of Mangalagiri Police Station was pending. Further it is stated that
the petitioner deliberately suppressed about all the crimes. Learned Standing
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also relied upon a judgment rendered by
this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External
Affairs, New Delhi and others2.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and also perused the material placed
on record.
7. It appears that the respondent No.2 is under the premise that the
petitioner herein is involved in several criminal cases and he applied for
passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that at present only
one criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the same is at the
crime stage i.e., Cr.No.167 of 2021 on the file of the Managalagiri Police
Station. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of
Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport to the petitioner is contrary to the
law.
2
2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP)
5
8. For more understanding, Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is
extracted hereunder:
“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:–
(a)that the applicant is not a citizen of India;
(b)that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities
prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
(c)that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be
detrimental to the security of India;
(d)that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice
the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;
(e)that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately
preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any
offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to
imprisonment for not less than two years;
(f)that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the
applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
(g)that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of
the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force
or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been
made by any such court;
(h)that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure
incurred in connection with such repatriation
(i)that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel
document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.
9. The issue of renewal and issuing of passport is regulated by the
Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for
this purpose.
6
10. It is further observed that holding a passport and freedom to go abroad
has much social value and represents the basic human right of great
significance.
11. In NarigeRavindranath vs. The Union of India and others3, the High
Court for the State of Telangana held as follows:
6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page
570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as
under:
“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.”
7. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated
09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC online SC 2048 in
Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others at para
4 observed as under:
“The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right
for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative
character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms
of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience.
3
W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023
7The 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.”
12. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the
present writ petition is allowed.
13. Further the respondents are directed to consider the application of the
petitioner without referring to the criminal case and issue the passport to the
petitioner for a period of two(2) years subject to the petitioner furnishing order
copies with regard to the crimes wherein the petitioner was acquitted and
award copies with regard to the crimes wherein the petitioner was
compounded, if otherwise the application is in order, within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
14. This order shall not preclude the Respondents from taking such steps
as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioners for any other
purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
06.02.2025
Note: C.C. by two(2) days
B/o.TPS
8
77
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.2092 of 2025
06.02.2025
Note: C.C. by two(2) days
B/o.TPS
