Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boddu Tulasiram vs The Union Of India on 1 July, 2024
APHC010195362024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3233]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU
NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9839/2024
Between:
Boddu Tulasiram ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. DIVYA DATLA(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
". . to issue a writ, order more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of respondent No.3 in not issuing 2 the passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application no.VJ2066443562524 dated 10.04.2024 on the ground of pending criminal case against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and against Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and against the Passports Act, 1967 and against the orders passed by this Hon'ble court in W.P.No.6651 of 2023 and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to consider the application No.VJ2066443562524 dated 10.04.2024 of the petitioner and issue passport to him and pass such other order or orders... "
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the Regional Passport Officer is not issuing passport to the petitioner on the mere ground that a crime is pending against him, which is contrary to the settled principles of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in a similar situated case, this Court in W.P.No.34656 of 2022 passed an order, allowing the Writ Petition with a direction to consider the passport application of the petitioner without raising any objection relating to pending the crime registered against the petitioner therein and prayed to consider this case also in similar lines. 3
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the for the respondents submitted that, a crime vide Crime.No.584 of 2017 is pending against the petitioner and an adverse report has been received from the Police Station, as such, the Passport Officer has not considered the petitioner's passport application. As such, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. Perused the record.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has made an application for issuance of passport vide Application No.VJ2066443562524, dated 10.04.2024. The authorities did not consider the application on the ground that crime vide Crime No.584 of 2017 is pending against the petitioner and adverse remarks were received from the concerned Police Station.
8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.34656/2022, the operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
19. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel, in our view, it is appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, as extracted hereunder:4
Relevant provisions of issue and renewal of passports: Section 6(2): 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, bedetrimental 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 5 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.
The refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.
Section 6(2)(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trail in a criminal court. The grounds on which the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is being refused could at best fall within Section 6(2)(f) of the PassportAct, 1967.
20. Section 2(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, has been considered on several occasions by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts.
22. The learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Ahamed Fahath vs The Regional Passport Officer held that mere pendency of a First 6 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 criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would depend on no objection being given by the concerned court."
9. In Vagala Venkata Siva Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has categorically held that, as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant in India.
10. A bare reading of the Passport Act, 1967 reveals that there is no absolute bar for issuance of passport. As per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 when the passport authority refuses to grant passport, the Court while exercising its discretion has to look at the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere pendency of crime cannot be a reason to refuse to grant passport.
11. Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration, and the judgment referred supra, this Court 7 is inclined to dispose of the Writ petition with the following direction:
The 3rd respondent herein is directed to consider the petitioner's passport application bearing No.VJ2066443562524, dated 10.04.2024, within a period of two (02) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order, regardless pending Crime No.584 of 2017 registered against the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order, in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 01.07.2024 BSP 8 25 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.9839 of 2024 01.07.2024 BSP