Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Durga Bhavani S vs The Union Of India on 24 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUAI
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 3333 OF 2025
Between;
Durga Bhavani S, W/o. Venkateshwara Raju Samantapudi, aged about
58 years, Home Maker, R/o. Door no21-10/5-77A, Gokul street,
Srinagar, Vijayawada -520011, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Represented by its
Principal Secretary, South Block, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, Office located at Near
Venkateshwara Theatre Complex, 0pp. All India Radio, MG Road
(Bandar Road) Vijayawada, NTR District - 500 003.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi.
4. Women Police Station, Vijayawada City, Represented by its Station
House Officer, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents
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 any appropriate writ, order or direction, one more
particularly in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring that the action of
the 2"^ Respondent in not considering the passport renewal application no.
VJ2077249895924 dated 27.12.2024 of the Petitioner seeking renewal of
the passport bearing No. Y6231009 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary
to the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980 and also
in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently to direct the Respondents to renew the Petitioner's passports
bearing Nos. Y6231009 fora period of 10 years in view of judgments of
this Hon'ble Court in W.P. Nos. 10166 of 2024, 7714 of 2022, 9356 of
2023, 1392 of 2023 and W.P.No. 29505 of 2024.
lA 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 direct the Respondent No. 2 forthwith to process the passport
renewal application no. VJ2077249895924 dated 27.12.2024 seeking
renewal of the passport bearing No. Y6231009 for 10 years without
reference to criminal case and accordingly renew the passport to the
Petitioner for a period of 10 years.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: SRI G.ARUN SHOWRI
(CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL)
Counsel for the Respondents 3 & 4: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following order:
APHC010062062025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 3333/2025
Between:
Durga Bhavani S ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME
2.G.ARUN SHOWRI(CENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:
. .to issue any appropriate writ order or direction one more particularly
nd in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 2
Respondent in not considering the passport renewal application
no.VJ2077249895924 dated 27.12.2024 of the Petitioner seeking renewal ofthe passport bearing No.Y6231009 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to
2NV,J
>
W.P.No.3333 of 2025the provisions of Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Ruies, 1980 and also in
violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently
to direct the Respondents to renew the Petitioner’s passports bearing
NOS.Y6231009 for a period of 10 years in view of judgments of this Hon’ble
Court in W.P.Nos.10166 of 2024, 7714 of 2022, 9356 of 2023, 1392 of 2023and W. P.29505 of 2024 and pass….”
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. Petitioner herein is a passport holder bearing passport Ho.Y6231009 for
a period of 10 years. Vide application No. VJ2077249895924 dated
27.12.2024, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same.
4. Respondent No.2 herein had issued letter No.SCN/320445089/25 dated
08.01.2025 seeking clarification regarding the renewal of the passport, as it
was evident from the police verification report that the petitioner has been
involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.148 of 2020 on the file of Mahila
UPS, Vijayawada and registered as C.C.No.765 of 2024 pending on the file of
II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. Though the
nd
petitioner had explained with regard to pendency of the criminal case, the 2
respondent did not consider for renewal of the passport. Hence, the writ
petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the complaint was
lodged based on false allegations and except that, there is no offence. He
further submits that the action of Respondent Authorities more particularly
Respondent No.2 in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner and
3
4 NV,J
W.P.No.3333 of 2025
denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is nothing but an
infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental
right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his
wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of lndia\
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down
by this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India and others^. In
view of the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the
passport
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the
written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities wherein it is stated
that as per the Police verification Report received you are/were
involved/accused/convicted in criminal court cases vide Cr.No.148/2020
under section 498-A, 417 IPC, 3, DPA of Mahila UPS, Vijayawada and it was
numbered as C.C.No.765 of 2024 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate and it is in trial stage. It is further submitted that the respondents
as per the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, when a
criminal case is pending against the applicant in any Criminal Court, the
^1978 AIR 597
^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024
4
NV,J
W.P.No.3333of2025
applicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection Certificate
(NOC) from the Court below where case is pending along with GSR 570(E)
undertaking. Hence, if the Court gives permission to the applicant to travel
abroad and directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the
Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E).
9. It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned
Judge in Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case^, the petitioner is required to obtain orders
from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record.
11. In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt
with various case law on the subject and passed a detailed order., the
operative portion of which reads as follows:-
(a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent ■
passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on
compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the
pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected.
(b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the
cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the
Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order
from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial.
^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023
5
# NV,J
W.P.No.3333 of 2025
(c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the
application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere
pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of
C
other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993.
12. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court
disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of
which reads as foHows:-
9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated
04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 held that mere pendency of a First
Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a
regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is
taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminalproceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport
would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court.
10. The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated
25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a
Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f). ”
11. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when
there is a pending proceedings before the Criminal Court aftercognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no
pending criminal proceeding before the Court. ”
13. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others’^, the
Higher Court for the State of Telangana held as follows:
” W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023
6NV,J
W.P.No.3333 of 2025
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 obsen/ed 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 thefundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
1. 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. The right also extends to
private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basichumanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go
abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right.
14. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose
of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the
application of the petitioner, and renew her passport for a period of two (02)
years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the
criminal case vide Crime No.148 of 2020 on the file of Mahila UPS,
Vijayawada and registered as C.C.No.765 of 2024 pending on the file of II
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, within two (02)
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
BBS
7
WVJ
W.P.No.3333 of 2025
15.
Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, she shall obtain prior
permission (NOC) from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appearbefore the trial Court, whenever her presence is required by the Court.
16.
However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking suchsteps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other
purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.
17.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
1. The Principal Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs
South Block, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, Office located at Near
Venkateshwara Theatre Complex, 0pp. All India Radio, MG Road
(Bandar Road) Vijayawada, NTR District – 500 003.
3. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
4. pe Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Vijayawada City
Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
5. One CC to Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to Sri G.Arun Showri, (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC]
7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
8. Two CD Copies
RAM
fHIGH COURT
DATED:24/02/2025
ORDER
I n MAR 2025 n
WP.No.3333 of 2025 ^ . Curreni aecuon . ^DISPOSING OF THE WP
WITHOUT COSTS