Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M V Revathi vs The Union Of India on 11 August, 2025
APHC010375582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3459]
MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION No.19245 OF 2025
Between:
M.V. Revathi, W/o. M.K.Velu,
Residing at D.No.57/B, Bazar Street,
Puttur Town and Mandal,
A.P - 517 583. --- Petitioner
And
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary (CPV Overseas
Indian affairs) Ministry of External Affairs,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Passport Authority of India,
Rep. by its Chief Passport Officer
P.S.P Division, Ministry of External Affairs,
Room No.8, Patiala House,
New Delhi.
3. The Regional Passport Office,
Rep. by its Regional Passport Officer,
4th Floor, Stalin Central,
D.No.27-37-158, M.G. Road,
Vijayawada.
4. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.
5. The Station House Officer,
Puttur Urban PS, Puttur,
Tirupathi District,
Andhra Pradesh. --- Respondents
2
JS,J
WP No.19245/2025
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 a Writ more particularly in the
form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents
in issuing the passport to the petitioner pursuant to her application
vide VJ1065142262525 (Application Reference No.25-
1051294742) under the guise of pendency of a criminal case as
perse illegal, unreasonable, irrational, unconstitutional besides
being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides being
opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and fair-play and
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and to consequentially direct the respondents
to issue a fresh passport with a validity of 10 years to the petitioner
without reference to the said case 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 direct the respondents to
positively consider her application vide VJ1065142262525
(Application Reference No.25-1051294742) for issuance of a
passport without reference to pending case, pending disposal of the
writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Venkatesh B. Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G.P. for Home
2. Deputy Solicitor General of
India
The Court made the following:
3
JS,J
WP No.19245/2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri Venkatesh B. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 5 and perused the material available on record.
2. The petitioner, who is an Indian citizen, has applied for a new passport under Reference No.25-1051294742. The respondent authorities have completed the enquiry and, after review, issued an acknowledgment under Application No.VJ1065142262525 to the petitioner. At the request of the respondent authorities, the petitioner submitted her self-declaration. Subsequently, the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that a criminal case is pending against her for offences under Sections 448 and 427 R/w.34 of the IPC in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that mere pendency of a criminal case is not sufficient reason to deny issuance of a passport.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of Crime No.39 of 2022 for offenses under Sections 448 and 427 R/w.34 of IPC, after the charge sheet was filed. Since the case is pending trial under C.C. No.311 of 2022 before the Court of 4 JS,J WP No.19245/2025 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur, Tirupati District, the petitioner must approach the jurisdictional Court and file an application.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Court and file an application.
6. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1 has 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.
7. A Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others2, observed as follows:
"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."1
(1978) 1 SCC 248 2 LAWS 2019(2) SCC Online SC 2048 5 JS,J WP No.19245/2025
8. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.383 of 2024, dated 29.10.2024, held as under:
"16. Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the Court of Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, having not taken judicial notice of the charge sheet filed before it, cannot be said to have taken cognizance much less can the Court be said to have initiated proceedings in terms of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
17. Therefore, we would have no hesitation in holding that proceedings would be said to have been pending only if cognizance had been taken by the Court and steps had been taken by the Court under Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of „proceedings pending before a criminal Court‟, which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967."
9. Thus, based on the material available on record, the Police filed a charge sheet in Crime No.39 of 2022 after taking cognizance, and it was numbered as C.C. No.311 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur, Tirupati District.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur, Tirupati District and make an application. Upon making such an application, the 6 JS,J WP No.19245/2025 jurisdictional Court shall pass appropriate orders by mentioning the period, keeping in view Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 11.08.2025 DSH