Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kammila Ashok Varma vs The Union Of India on 18 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMB|g(^(^ VA
;) d
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28622 OF 2024
Between:
1. Kammila Ashok Varma, S/o. Appalanarashimha Raju, Aged about 74
years, R/o. Flat 206, SS Ignesh, Midhilapuri Colony, PM Palem,
Visakhapatnam, 530041 Presently residing at 3507 Briarglen Lane'
Louisville, KY40220, U.S.A.
2. Kammila Venkata Satya Uma Devi, W/o. Ashok Varma, Aged about 64
years, R/o. Flat 206, SS Ignesh, Midhilapuri Colony, PM Palem,
Visakhapatnam, 530041, Presently residing at 3507 Briarglen Lane'
Louisville, KY40220, U.S.A.
...Petitioners
AND
1. The Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary,
23D,
India.
Janapathi Road, Rajpath area. Central Secretariat, New Delhi
2. The Regional Passport Office, Rep. by its Passport Officer, Vijayawada
N.T.R. District, A.P.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District , A.P.
4. The Commissioner of Police, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam, A.P.
5. The Station House Officer/ Deputy Superintendent of Police, Women
Police Station, Kakinada, A.P.
...Respondents
\
%
if
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 an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 2nd
respondent in not considering the passport renewal application of the
petitioners vide application No. ARN 24-2004209120 dt. Sep 18, 2024 due
to the pendency of the criminal case highly arbitrary, illegal improper.
contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and in violation
of Articles, 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and also against the
Passport Act 1067 and Rules therein and consequently direct the 2nd
respondent to renew the passport Nos. L9876284 of the petitioners for a
period of validity of 10 years as per the usual guidelines of passport
renewal.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 2nd respondent forthwith to renew the passport Nos.
L9876284 of the petitioners for a period of 10 years pending disposal of the
above Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M KESAVA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO
DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following order:
?
\
• J
APHC010544372024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28622/2024
Between:
Kammila Ashok Varma and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.M KESAVA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME
2.VENKATESWARLU GUNDUBOINA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
1
I 2
$
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28622/2024
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
2^^ respondent in not considering the passport renewal
application of the petitioners vide application No.ARN 24-2004209120, dated 18.09.2024 due to the pendency of the
criminal case highly arbitrary, illegal, improper, contrary to law
and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of
Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and also against
the Passport Act, 1967 and Rules therein and consequently
direct the 2″^ respondent to renew the passport Nos.L9876284
of the petitioners for a period of validity of 10 years as per the
usual guidelines of passport renewal and to pass such other
order or orders…”
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that the petitioner
applied for renewal of the passport bearing No.L9876284 vide application
dated 18.09.2024 to the 2^^ respondent. But the said application was returned
on the ground that a criminal case i.e., C.C.No.951 of 2023 under Section
498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was filed
against the petitioners on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Kakinada. The petitioners preferred Criminal Petition No.7431 of
2023 before this Court seeking to quash the C.C.No.951 of 2023, wherein this
s
V.
3
Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 27.09.2023, which is
extracted hereunder:
“Presence of the petitioners i.e., A2 to A6 before
the trial court is dispensed with, except on those
dates when the learned Magistrate feels that the
presence of petitioners i.e., A2 to A6 Is
necessary. ”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1®’ petitioner has
applied for renewal of the passport. He further submits that the Respondent
Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 denying the renewal/re-issuance of
the passport of the 1®’ petitioner is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental
Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence,
the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the fundamental right of
the petitioners 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 India^.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 1®’ petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport
^ 1978 AIR 597
^ W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024
51N
4
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the
written instructions issued by the Respondent Authorities dated 11.12.2024
wherein it is stated that 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 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 renew/issue passport, the
Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E).
7. It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned
Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case^, the 1®* petitioner is required to obtain
orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for
the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record.
9. 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.
^ W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023
7
5
5
(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.
(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
other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993.
10. 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
follows:-
‘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 FirstInformation 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
criminal
taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that
proceedings 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
Court after
there Is a pending proceedings before the Criminal
cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no
pending criminal proceeding before the Court. ”
t
6
11. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others^, 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.
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.
W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023
M7
12. 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
St
the 1 petitioner, and renew his passport for a period of two years, in accordance
with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide
C.C.No.951 of 2023 on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Kakinada, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. Further, if the 1®’ petitioner intend to travel abroad, he shall obtain NOC
from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court,
whenever his presence is required by the Court.
14. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such
steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the 1®’ petitioner for any other
purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-K.SR1N1VASA RAJU
//TRUE COPY// ASSlSTANTjREGlSTRAR
SE
To,
1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, 23D,
Janapathi Road, Rajpath area. Central Secretariat, New Delhi, India.
2. The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada, N.T.R.
District, A.P.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District, A.P.
4. The Commissioner of Police, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam, A.P.
r
1
g
5. The Station House Officer/ Deputy Superintendent of Police, Women
Police Station, Kakinada, A.P.
6. One CC to Sri. M Kesava Rao Advocate [OPUC]
7. One CC to Sri. Pasala Ponna Rao Deputy Solicitor General of India
[OPUC]
8. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
9. Three CD Copies
CSC
HIGH COURT
DATED:18/12/2024
ORDER
WP.No.28622 of 2024
DISPOSING OF THE WP
WITHOUT COSTS