Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vishnuvardhan Setty vs Union Of India on 13 December, 2024
APHC010516152024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 26967/2024
Between:
Vishnuvardhan Setty ...PETITIONER
AND
Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V R MAHESWARA RAO PALETI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. P VIJAYA KUMARI(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 one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in withholding reissuance of petitioner's Passport (No.T 2660233) on account of the pending criminal case (Cr.No.28/2022 under Section 67 of IT Act) as unlawful, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to reissue petitioner's Passport pursuant to his Application dated 2 05.07.2024, without reference to the pending criminal case, and pass such other order(s)..."
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. The petitioner herein is a Security Officer at Indian Airlines, Hyderabad. Whereas the passport bearing No.T2660233 of the petitioner valid until 08.07.2029 was damaged. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted an application vide File No.VS1076720420524 to Respondent No.2 seeking for reissuance of passport.
4. While so, Respondent No.2 issued a letter / show cause notice to the petitioner vide Ref.No.SCN/319306869/24, dated 26.08.2024, stating that the criminal case was pending against the petitioner and requested for explanation of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unaware of any criminal case filed against him and he had not received any prior notice from the Police Department. After inquiring with the Station House Officer of Disha Police Station, Kakinada, the petitioner came to know that a FIR / Crime No.28 of 2022 was registered against him under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000. But, till date, no charge sheet has been filed.
6. Learned counsel further submits that despite the petitioner's full cooperation and clarification with the Authority, the passport application has remained pending since 05.07.2024 by the Respondent Authorities. Hence the writ petition.
3
7. 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.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted the written instructions issued by Inspector of Police, Mahila UPS, Kakinada, dated 13.12.2024, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case that comes under publishing or transmitting of material depicting children and sexually explicit etc. in electronic form which was occurred prior to 15.03.2022 and reported on 24.03.2022 at Women Police Station, Kakinada against the unknown suspects who are having accounts in social media platforms, depicting minor girls and boys in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner in electronics form, upon the preliminary enquiry report of the O/o. Superintendent of Police, Kakinada vide C.No.193/DCRB/2022, dated 23.03.2022 and C.No.1709/NCMEC/CID/2019, dated 15.03.2022 at Addl.DGP, CID, AP, Mangalagiri. The present Criminal Case was registered vide Cr.No.28/2022, under Section 67(B) of IT Act, 2000 of Disha Women Police Station, Kakinada on 24.03.2022.
9. It is further stated that the mobile phone of the petitioner / accused was forwarded to RFSL, Vijayawada for analyzing data with expert opinion and the analysis report is yet to be received. During the course of the investigation of the present case, notices were served under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. to 13 accused's in various dates out of 20 accuseds. It is further stated that Respondent No.3 only registered the case according to the tip lines data given 4 by the A.P.CID against the petitioner besides 19 other suspects. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. 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 5 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.
11. The issue of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted above is relevant for this purpose.
12. 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.
13. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others 1, the High 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:
"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."1
W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023 6
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."
14. 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 and the notice issued by the Respondents vide Letter Ref.No.SCN/319306869/24, dated 26.08.2024 is hereby set-aside.
15. Further, Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case i.e. FIR No.28 of 2022 on the file of Disha (UPS) Police Station, Kakinada and re-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. 7
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 13th December, 2024 Knr 8 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.26967 of 2024 13th December, 2024 Knr