Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Angajala Rama Lakshmana Rao vs Union Of India on 20 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT APPEAL NO:803/2023
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms.T.Alekhya, learned Central Government Counsel appearing through virtual mode for the respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.
2. The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13833 of 2023. The writ petition was filed for direction to the respondents to renew the petitioner's passport, being aggrieved from their action in not considering the application for renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, in which the petitioner was facing trial.
3. The petitioner had Indian Passport to go abroad. The validity period of the passport expired on 24.06.2023. A case in Crime No.78 of 2018 under Sections 342, 509, 323 and 34 I.P.C, is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner had applied for 2 renewal by paying the requisite fee. Vide letter dated 10.01.2023, he was asked to submit explanation pursuant to the police verification report regarding pendency of the criminal case. He submitted his explanation on 03.02.2023 but the passport was not renewed.
4. The learned Single Judge, by the order under challenge dated 14.06.2023, dismissed the writ petition. However, giving liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in Calendar Case No.447 of 2018 and seek necessary orders.
5. The learned Single Judge took the view that, in view of pendency of the criminal case and the petitioner facing trial, as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, and the law settled in such circumstances, the petitioner had to approach the criminal court and seek No Objection Certificate from the said Court. The learned Single Judge also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 and observed that in the said case, it was held that the authorities cannot refuse to renew the 1 2021 SCC OnLIne Sc 3549 3 passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. But, in the case of the petitioner, he was facing trial. It was not a case of pendency of the criminal appeal. Consequently, it was held that the judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) was not applicable.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that, to get the passport, to travel abroad, is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the conditions under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and the Rules, apply to the grant of the passport i.e. for the first time but not for its renewal. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu(supra), directed to grant renewal, even during pendency of the criminal appeal, where the accused had been convicted and sentenced. Whereas in the present case, trial is pending and there is no conviction, so the petitioner is to be presumed to be innocent and renewal of passport cannot be refused. He placed reliance in the cases of, Ravulapally Ravindranath v. Union of India2, Satish Chandra Verma lps v. Union of India3, Sumit Mehta v. State of 2 Writ Appeal No.704 of 2024 3 Civil Appeal No.3802/2019 dated 09.04.2019 4 N.C.T. of Delhi4, Immidi Subrahmanya Krishna Butchi Raju v. Union of India5, and Ravikanti Venkatesham V. The Union of India and another6, to contend that on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, the renewal of the passport cannot be refused.
7. Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, submits that the judgment under appeal does not call for any interference. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, the Rules and the Office Memorandum of the Central Government dated 25.08.1993 apply to the renewal of the passport as well. She submits that the judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) is not attracted as the petitioner herein is facing trial and in that case, the stage of trial was over. The appeal was pending and sentence imposed was less than 2 years. So, none of the disqualifications under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act were attracted. She placed reliance in Kadar Valli Shaik v. Union of India7.
8. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.
4 2013(15) SCC 570 5 W.P.No.17458 of 2024 dated 10.09.2024 6 W.P.No.32906 of 2023 dated 05.12.2023 7 2023 SCC Online AP 406 5
9. So far as the submission with respect to the fundamental right is concerned, there cannot a dispute that to travel abroad is an important basic human right and has much social value. However, the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, itself, is subject to deprivation by the procedure established by law. A person can be deprived of his life, and liberty, by following the procedure established by law. Grant or renewal of the passport to travel abroad can be claimed only as per the law i.e. the Passport Act, Rules and the Notifications issued in exercise of the statutory powers and not contrary to the statutory provisions. A person can exercise the fundamental right but subject to the limitations imposed by law.
10. In Kadar Valli Shaik (supra), on consideration of the provisions of the Passports Act, the Rules, the Notification of the Central Government No.VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019, and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra), as also the submissions to the same effect as above, this Court held that the expression 'issue' of passport in Section 5 of the Passports Act includes 'renewal' of the passport as well. It was further held that while considering the renewal of the passport, the passport authority would be 6 within its jurisdiction and authority to refuse renewal, on the same grounds as in the cases of issuance of the passport for 'the first time', provided by Section 6(2) of the Passport Act. In other words, it was held that Section 6(2) of the Passports Act applies to renewal of the passport, as well. With respect to the notification, Office Memorandum of the Central Government dated 25.08.1993 it was held further that on production of an order, from the concerned court, as referred in the notification, the renewal of the passport shall not be refused, only on the ground of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act i.e. mere pendency of the criminal case for trial.
11. It is apt to refer Para No.103 of Kadar Valli Shaik (supra), as under:
"103. To sum up, this Court holds that;
(i) "Issue‟ of passport in Section 5 of the Passports Act includes "renewal‟ of the passport as well;
(ii) While considering the renewal of the passport, the passport authority would be within its jurisdiction and authority to refuse renewal, on the same grounds as in the cases of issuance of the passport for the first time‟, provided by Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act. In other words, Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act applies to renewal of the passport, as well;
(iii) In the cases for renewal, to which Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act is attracted, i.e., where the applicant is facing criminal trial in a criminal Court in India, renewal of the passport shall be refused, subject to the fulfillment of the condition under 7 the notification of the Central Government, dated 25.08.1993, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, upon which such applicant shall stand exempted from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6;
(iv) In a case where clause (f) of Section 6 (2) is attracted, the holder of the passport, for its renewal, will have to produce an order from the Court concerned, where the proceedings against him are pending trial in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him, permitting him to depart from India;
(v) The notification dated 25.08.1993 applies to the citizen applicants for renewal of the passport even if already departed from India under the passport of which renewal is sought.
(vi)On production of an order, from the concerned Court, as referred in the notification, the renewal of the passport shall not be refused only on the ground of Section 6 (2) (f), i.e., mere pendency of the criminal case for trial;
(vii) Condition (d) of the notification dated 25.08.1993 is an additional requirement and is not in substitution of the requirement from those citizen/applicants who have to produce an order of the Court concerned, where the criminal case is pending, permitting him to depart from India."
12. In the writ petition, neither Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act nor the notification of the Central Government dated 25.08.1993, which was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 22(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, was under challenge.
13. Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) was a case, where the applicant seeking renewal of the passport was not facing trial. The criminal appeal was pending. There was no prohibition found for grant or renewal of the passport during pendency of the criminal appeal, where after conviction, the 8 sentence imposed was less than two years. The bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act is when the person is facing trial of the criminal case. The Bar is also when there is conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude and the sentence imposed is imprisonment for not less than two years. So, in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra), the punishment imposed being less than two years and the applicant not facing trial, any bar under Section 6(2)(e) or (f) of the Passports Act for grant or renewal of the passport was not attracted.
14. In Kadar Valli Shaik (supra), while considering Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra), this Court observed and held as under in paras 56 to 62.
"56. In Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. In Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra), there was no trial pending in a criminal Court. What was pending was the criminal appeal in the Hon'ble Apex Court. So, Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act was not attracted.
57. Secondly, Section 6 (2) (e) was also not attracted because the sentence awarded to the applicant therein was reduced by the High Court to a period of one year. So it was also not a case of "not less than two years imprisonment".
58. Section 6 (2) (e) of the Passports Act, which is also one of the grounds for refusal to issue a passport, provides as under:
"that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted 9 by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;"
59. A perusal of clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act clearly shows that there should be conviction by a Court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and the applicant should have been sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years. The sentence of imprisonment, in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) was only for one year.
60. Under those circumstances, renewal of the passport of the applicant in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) could not be refused. Consequently, direction was issued to renew the passport.
61. Learned counsels for the petitioners could not point out from Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) as to where it has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that in spite of the case being covered under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, the passport authority shall issue the passport or grant renewal and shall not refuse issuance or renewal.
62. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) does not hold that mere pendency of a criminal case under Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act in the Court concerned at the trial stage is no bar for issuance or renewal of the passport."
15. We now consider the judgments cited by the learned counsel for petitioner.
16. In Sumit Mehta(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the law presumes the accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Sumit Mehta(supra) was a case 10 for consideration of anticipatory bail. The said judgment is not on the point of issuance of passport or its renewal under the Passports Act.
17. In Satish Chandra Verma (supra), the permission was denied to the accused therein for a private foreign visit. It was observed that 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 Court found that there was no reason for the Government of India to refuse permission to the accused therein to travel abroad. The said judgment is also not on grant or renewal of the passport.
18. In Ravikanti Venkatesham(supra), the High Court of Telangana held that the renewal of passport could not be denied on the ground that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. The cases of Sumit Mehta (supra) and Satish Chandra Varma(supra) were referred on the point that the right to travel abroad is a basic human right and that law presumes an accused to be innocent till he was proven guilty. In para-6 of the said judgment, the Telangana High Court also observed that, 11 inter alia that the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed in accordance with law only.
19. In Narige Ravindranath v. The Union of India and others8, the Telangana High Court held that Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport.
20. In Kadar Valli Shaik (supra), as mentioned above, this Court observed that on production of an order from the concerned court as referred in the Notification, the renewal of passport shall not be refused merely on the ground of pendency of Criminal Case. For the detailed reasons assigned and as discussed in Kadar Valli Shaik (supra), this Court is not in agreement with the view taken by the Telangana High Court in the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the writ appellant.
21. In Immidi Subrahmanya Krishna Butchi Raju (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court directed to renew the passport in accordance with law without raising any objection relating to pending criminal case. It was also directed that if the petitioner intended to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission from 8 W.P.No.25141 /2023 Dt.03.10.2023 12 the court concerned. The case of Kadar Valli Shaik (supra) was also referred, and it was held that the petitioner was required to obtain orders from the court, where the C.C. was pending.
22. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner do not advance the case of the petitioner, any further. The renewal of the passport can be considered only in accordance with law and for that the petitioner has to fulfil the requirements prescribed under the Passport Act, the Rules and the Notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the statutory power.
23. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Satish Chandra Verma(supra) vide judgment dated 18.09.2024 also held that notwithstanding the pendency of a criminal case, the person can legally proceed to seek renewal of the passport subject to an order to be passed by the Court in which the criminal case is pending specifying either the validity of the passport or specifying the period for travel abroad. In the said case, no such application was filed before the appropriate Court. The Coordinate Bench held that the petitioner would have to approach the Court, in which he was facing trial for appropriate orders in terms of 13 G.S.R.570(E), dated 25.08.1993. The judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) was considered and it was observed that the power to refuse renewal of passport could be invoked if the applicant had been convicted by a court for an offence involving moral turpitude and the sentence was for not less than two years.
24. Paras 6 and 7 of Ravulapally Ravindranath (supra) are read as under:
"6. In the background of the aforementioned provisions, it can be seen that notwithstanding the fact that a criminal case is pending against the appellant, yet the appellant can legally proceed to seek the renewal of the passport subject to an order to be passed by the Court in which the criminal case is pending specifying ei- ther the validity of the passport or specifying the period for travel abroad. No such application has yet been filed by the appellant before the appropriate Court till date.
7. Reliance placed by the appellant in the Apex Court judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulyu is not apt in the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as the applicant in that case was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year, which had been challenged in appeal. The sentence in that case was only for a period of one year whereas the power vested in the authority to refuse to renew the passport could be invoked only if the applicant had been convicted by a Court for an offence involving moral turpitude and the sentence was for not less than two years. It was in those circumstances that the Apex Court held that the passport authority could not refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. In the instant case, it is not the provision of Section 6(2)(e) but Section 6(2)(f) which is attracted to and therefore the appellant would have to approach the Court in which the appellant is facing trial for appropriate orders in terms of G.S.R.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 "14
25. Thus considered, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal.
26. The Writ Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
27. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Date: 20.01.2025 L.R.Copy to be marked.
B/o.
Pab 15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL NO: 803/2023 Date:- 20.01.2025 Pab 16 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN +WRIT APPEAL NO: 803/2023 %Dated: 20.01.2025 # Angajala Rama Lakshmana Rao. ...... Appellant and $ Union of India and three others ..... Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup ^ Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 : Ms.T.Alekhya, Central Government Counsel ^Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 : Ms.A.Jayanthi <GIST :
>HEAD NOTE :
?Cases referred :1
2021 SCC OnLIne Sc 3549 2 Writ Appeal No.704 of 2024 3 Civil Appeal No.3802/2019 dated 09.04.2019 4 2013(15) SCC 570 5 W.P.No.17458 of 2024 dated 10.09.2024 6 2023 SCC Online AP 406 7 W.P.B O.32906/2023 DATED 05.12.2023
8. WP NO.25141/2023 DT.03.10.2023 17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL NO: 803/2023 Dated: 20.01.2025 # Angajala Rama Lakshmana Rao. ...... Appellant and $ Union of India and three others ..... Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals.
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J