Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Pavan Kalyan Somala vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2025
APHC010342802025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 17415/2025
Between:
1. PAVAN KALYAN SOMALA, S/O RATNA BABU SOMAIA, AGED 27
YRS D.NO.4-46, VIDYA NAGAR,DAVAJIGUDEM GANNAVARAM ,
KRISHNA DISTRICT-521101-
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTRY BHAVAN, NEW
DELHI.
2. THE REGIOINAL PASS PORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASS PORT
OFFICE , VIJAYAWADA
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COMMISSIONERATE OFFICE,
VIJAYAWADA .
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GANNAVARAM POLICE STATION,
GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA 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 toMay be Pleased to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction more
particulalry one in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the Respondents particulalry the 2nd Respondent in not issuing the Fresh
Pass Port in the name of Petitioner only on the sole ground that the petitoner
is involved in F.I.R. No.52/2023 U/s 337 of I.P.C., as well as in F.I.R.N0.
609/2021 on the file of Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District even though it is a
petty case as well as the matter is settled out of Court even both are in F.LR.,
stage inspite of the same the 2nd respondent insisting the petitioner to obtain
No Objection Certificate or any Order from the Competent Court for issuing a
Fresh Pass Port it is nothing but an Illegal , Unalwful, Violation of Article
14,19,21 of the Constitution of India, Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
, Violaiton of the Rulings of Apex Court as well as Central Government Rules
Consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to Issue a Fresh Pass Port in the
name of Petitioner on applying without insisting any No Objection or anything
without reference to the F.I.R. No.52/2023 and F.I.R.N0. 609/2021 on the file
of Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District . and pass such
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
May be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to Issue a Fresh Pass Port in
the name of Petitioner on applying without insisting any No Objection or
anything without reference to the F.I.R. No.52/2023 and F.I.R.No. 609/2021
the file of Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District pending disposal of the main writ
petition and pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAVURI LEELA SAI SAMPATH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2.
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 17415/2025
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed claiming the following relief:
“…to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly
one in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the Respondents, particularly the 2nd Respondent in not issuing
the Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner only on the sole
ground that the petitioner is involved in F.I.R.No.52/2023 U/s
337 of I.P.C., as well as in F.I.R.No. 609/2021 on the file of
Gannavaram P.S, Krishna District even though it is a petty
case as well as the matter is settled out of Court even both are
in FIR stage inspite of the same the 2nd respondent insisting the
petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate or any Order from
the Competent Court for issuing a Fresh Pass Port it is nothing
but an Illegal, Unalwful, Violation of Article 14, 19, 21 of the
Constitution of India Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
Violation of the Rulings of Apex Court as well as Central
Government Rules Consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to
Issue a Fresh Pass Port in the name of Petitioner on applying
without insisting any No Objection or anything without
reference to the F.I.R. No.52/2023 and F.I.R. No. 609/2021 on
the file of Gannavaram P.S, Krishna District and pass such
other order or orders …”
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein
applied for fresh passport before the 2nd respondent, but, the 2nd respondent
issued a letter dated 02.12.2023 directing the petitioner to obtain ‘No
Objection Certificate’ or Court Order for issuing such passport in the name of
the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is involved in criminal cases for
which, F.I.R.No.52/2023 U/s.337 of I.P.C. as well as F.I.R. No.609/2021 on
the file of Gannavaram Police Station were registered.
3. The further case of the petitioner herein is that pursuant to the crime
registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R.No.609/2021, the complainant
therein filed a memo informing that he intend to withdraw the case and does
not have any objection in closing the matter. Pursuant to the same, the
petitioner herein filed a Criminal Petition before this Court seeking to quash
the proceedings in the said FIR and the same is pending for Orders. Even
though the crimes registered against the petitioner are in FIR stage itself,
respondent No.2 is insisting the petitioner to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’
or Court Order for issuance of fresh passport to the petitioner. Hence, the
present Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the passport is only a travel
document and issuance of passport cannot be denied on the sole ground of
pendency of criminal cases. He further submits that cases vide Cr.No.52/2023
U/s.337 of IPC and 609/2021 were registered against the petitioner on the file
of Gannavaram Police Station. Charge sheet was filed in respect of
Cr.No.52/2023, but the C.C. number is awaited. As such, Section 6 or Section
10 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply to the petitioner in the present
case.
5. 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
6. Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government
appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 furnished written instructions issued by
respondent No.4, wherein, it is stated that on verification of police station
records, the petitioner is involved in a case vide Cr.No.52/2023, U/s.337 of
IPC which was altered to 338 IPC of Gannavaram Police Station and the
charge sheet is filed on 25.09.2023. C.C.No. is awaited. Another case
No.609/2021, U/s.406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 r/w.34 IPC on the file of of
Gannavaram Police Station is under investigation. He 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.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned
Standing Counsel for Central Government for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
the learned Government Pleader for Home and also perused the material
placed on record.
1
MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022
2
2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP)
8. It appears that the respondent No.2 is under the presumption that the
petitioner herein is involved in serious criminal cases and he applied for
issuance of passport by suppressing the same. But, the fact remains that the
said crimes were registered vide Cr.No.52 of 2023 on the file of Gannavaram
P.S., where charge sheet is filed and awaiting for C.C. No. and another Crime
No.609/2021 was under investigation. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others 3, the High
Court for the State of Telangana held as follows:
3
W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023
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.”
13. 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 disposed of.
14. Further the respondents are directed to consider the application of the
petitioner without referring to the criminal cases and issue the passport to the
petitioner for a period of three years, if otherwise the application is in order,
within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
15. This order shall not preclude the respondents from taking such steps
as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other
purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
29.07.2025
BSP
168
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.17415 of 2025
29.07.2025
BSP