Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Katasani Prasad Reddy vs The Union Of India on 29 July, 2024
APHC010293702024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 14757/2024
Between:
Katasani Prasad Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VARUN BYREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. ALEKHYA TADASINA(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the form of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.3 in not renewing the passport bearing No.J7874118, pursuant to his application vide VJ02C5056585523 on the ground that he has been arrayed as an Accused in a Criminal Case i.e. FIR No.207 of 2018, on the file of Banaganapalli Police Station, Banaganapalli Town & Mandal, Nandya lDistirct as illegal, manifestly, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, offending the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to renew the passport of the petitioner, with a validity of 10 years, without any reference to the above said crime and pass such other order(s)..."
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. The petitioner herein is an Agriculturalist and also into various businesses. The petitioner is a holder of the Indian Passport, bearing No.J7874118 and he made an application vide application vide file No.VJ02C5056585523, dated 09.08.2023 before Respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking renewal and issuance of a fresh passport, as his current passport expired on 13.09.2021. Pursuant to which, the petitioner attended the enquiry before the Respondent Authorities on 26.06.2024 and submitted all the relevant and required documents to the Respondent Authorities. Upon verifying the same, the Respondent Authorities have issued an acknowledgment letter to the petitioner clearly stating that a fresh passport will be granted, subject to verification by the Police Authorities.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the new passport was not issued to the petitioner as he was arrayed as an accused i.e. Accused No.1 in a Criminal Case i.e .FIR No.207 of 2018, dated 24.01.2022 on the file of Banaganapalli Police Station, Banaganapalli Town & Mandal, Nandyal District under Sections 341, 354 r/w.506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),1860.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the police personnel have duly conducted the investigation in the said criminal case and by way of proceedings dated 22.10.2019 issued by the SDPO, Dhone, it was directed that the case against the petitioner need not be proceeded with, as the same has been referred to as false. Pursuant to the report of the SDPO, the Sub Inspector of Police, Banaganapalli Police Station submitted a final report to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JFCM), Banaganapalli.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the right to travel is indeed a fundamental right and it cannot be deprived off under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted the written instructions dated 17.07.2024 issued by the Inspector of Police, Banaganapalle Police Station, Nandyal Distirct, wherein it is stated that on 04.11.2018 at 15.00 hrs, a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.207 of 2018, under sections 341, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Banaganapalli Police Station and investigated into. During the course of investigation basing on the evidence of witnesses LWs.1 to 9 and after recording their detailed statements and the Sub Inspector of Police, Banaganapalli Police Station referred the case as "false" with the permission of SDPO, Dhone vide proceedings in C.No.308/SDPO- D/2019, dated 22.10.2019 and also final report was submitted before the Hon'ble court.
8. After serving the RCS Notice to the complainant, the complainant filed the protest petition, but he did not attend the court on the date of adjournment. The Hon'ble JFCM, Banaganapalli gave permission to the protest petition in the Court in the next adjournment. Case posted to for appearance of the complainant in the above court to give his explanation on the RCS Notice. The matter is pending before the Court of JFCM, Banaganapalli for the appearance of the complainant.
9. 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 herein under:
"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, 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 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 others1, the Higher 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:1
W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 "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."
14. 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 vs. 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 allowed, directing the Respondents to consider the application of the petitioner vide VJ02C5056585523 without referring to the criminal case i.e. FIR No.207 of 2018, dated 24.01.2022 on the file of Banaganapalli Police Station, Nandyala District and renew the passport of the petitioner, if otherwise the application is in order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. 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 Date: 29th July, 2024 Note: Issue CC by three days B/o.
Knr HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.14757 of 2024 29th July, 2024 Note: Issue CC by three days B/o.
Knr