Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 786 (TS)

Karre Ravi Kiran Reddy v. Union of India

2023-12-21

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2023
ORDER : (Surepalli Nanda, J.) 1. Heard Mr.L.Aravind Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.K.V.V.Vedantha Chary, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 8. 2. Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under : "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No.2 in revoking the passport bearing No. K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 issued to the Petitioner herein alleged to have been revoked vide letter dated 10.12.2021 without following the due process of law in intimating the petitioner herein and not providing an opportunity of hearing and subsequent non conspiration of the response of the petitioner vide representation dated 01.04.2022 is as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to restore the passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 and renew the same." 3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under: The petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad and he holds passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013. The petitioner is an employee working in the United States of America since 2006 and had been resident there since then. Petitioner got married to one Ms.A.Lohitha on 18.10.2013 and she joined the company of the petitioner in USA in the month of March 2014 to lead a marital life and the petitioner had been blessed with baby boy born on 10.03.2017. The petitioner along with his wife had to travel to India in the month of March, 2015 for renewal of their VISA. The petitioner however travelled back to United States on 29.03.2015 with a fond hope that his wife and son would join him later on 18.04.2015. But curiously however, the petitioner's wife did not join the petitioner and instead filed a frivolous complaint on 20.09.2018 with allegations of domestic violence under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of Women's Police Station, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, wherein a crime was registered as crime No.182 of 2018. But curiously however, the petitioner's wife did not join the petitioner and instead filed a frivolous complaint on 20.09.2018 with allegations of domestic violence under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of Women's Police Station, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, wherein a crime was registered as crime No.182 of 2018. In response to petitioner's letter dated 28.02.2022 addressed to the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad, on coming to know that steps have been initiated for impounding of petitioner's passport, whereunder the petitioner sought the present status pertaining to the impounding of petitioner's passport bearing No. K7908337 the petitioner received a response on 18.04.2022 through mail from the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad informing the petitioner that the petitioner's passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 was revoked by the Consulate General of India, New York on 19.05.2021 and the petitioner was advised to approach them in this regard. It is further the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner received another letter dated 26.05.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit a detailed explanation on the ground that the petitioner's passport had been revoked by the Consulate General of India (CGI) New York on 19.05.2021 and the petitioner was residing illegally in USA without a valid travel document since last one year and the petitioner was therefore called upon to furnish explanation. Petitioner vide his representation dated 01.04.2022 requested for restoring Passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 and to renew the same. But however, the request of the petitioner had not been considered as on date and aggrieved by the same; the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, in particular, paras 3 to 8 reads as under: "3. It is submitted that on verification of this office records, it is found that Mr. Ravi Kiran Reddy Karre has been issued with Passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 with validity upto 04.07.2023 issued at Consulate General of India, New York in continuation of Passport bearing No.E7809490 dated 27.02.2004. 4. It is submitted that on verification of this office records, it is found that Mr. Ravi Kiran Reddy Karre has been issued with Passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 with validity upto 04.07.2023 issued at Consulate General of India, New York in continuation of Passport bearing No.E7809490 dated 27.02.2004. 4. It is submitted that this office received a letter dated 11.12.2019 vide No.Lr.Dis.No.2060 of 2019 from the Hon'ble Court of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad LB Nagar informing this office regarding the petitioner involved as accused in Cr.No.182 of 2018, C.C.No.3788 of 2019 under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Court has addressed a letter to Immigration authority directing them to impound the passport of the petitioner. 5. It is respectfully submitted that in compliance to the Hon'ble Court orders, the Passport bearing No.K7908337 has been revoked by the Consulate General of India (CGI) New York on 19.05.2021. 6. It is further submitted that this office has sent an email to the petitioner to his new email id., on 18.04.2022 stating that his Passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 has been revoked by the CGI New York on 19.05.2021 and advised the petitioner to approach the Indian Embassy in this regard. It is further submitted that this office has forwarded a letter to his local address in India and to his previous email ID i.e. krk.reddy83@gmail.com which was mentioned by the petitioner in the Passport application form. It is submitted that the petitioner did not intimate this office about his changed address or email id. 7. It is further submitted that this office has sent an email to the petitioner again on 26.05.2022 informing that his Passport has been revoked by CGI New York on 19.05.2021 and further informed him that he is residing illegally in USA without a valid travel document since one year. Hence directed the petitioner to furnish his explanation within 15 days and approach nearest Indian Embassy in this regard. It is to submit that there is no response from the petitioner till date. 8. It is further submitted that till date neither the petitioner approached any Indian Embassy or applied for renewal/re-issue of Passport or Emergency Certificate to travel to home country." PERUSED THE RECORD : 5. It is to submit that there is no response from the petitioner till date. 8. It is further submitted that till date neither the petitioner approached any Indian Embassy or applied for renewal/re-issue of Passport or Emergency Certificate to travel to home country." PERUSED THE RECORD : 5. G-mail sent by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner dated 18.04.2022, reads as under : "Sir, This refers to mail dated 02.04.2022. It is to inform that your passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 was revoked by the consulate general of India new yark on 19.05.2021 you are advised to approach them in this regards. It is also necessary to mention that we have forwarded our earlier letter to your local address in India and to your previous mail id i.e., krk.reddy83@gmail.com which was mentioned by you in the passport application form." 6. G-mail sent by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner dated 26.05.2022, reads as under : "Sir, Please find enclosed a letter and FIR copy received by this office from the police authorities. We have informed you vide our mail dated 18.04.2022 that your passport bearing No.K7908337 was revoked by CGI, New York on 19.05.2021. It is pertinent to mention that you are residing illegally in USA without a valid travel document since 1 year. Hence you are directed to furnish your explanation within 15 days and it is also directed you to approach nearest Indian embassy in this regards." 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 mainly puts forth the following submissions: The 3rd respondent office has sent a e-mail to the petitioner on 18.04.2022, and again on 26.05.2022, informing that the Passport of the petitioner had been revoked by Consulate General of India (CGI), New York on 19.05.2021 and further, though the petitioner was called upon to furnish explanation for his illegal staying in USA without a valid travel document for more than one year vide G-mail dated 26.05.2022, the petitioner had not responded and furnished any explanation as sought for vide G-mail of the 3rd respondent dated 26.05.2022 nor the petitioner approached the nearest Indian Embassy or applied for renewal/reissue of Passport or Emergency Certificate to travel home country. Hence it is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for, and hence writ petition needs to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 8. This Court opines that the relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition pertaining to consideration of the representation dated 01.04.2022 of the petitioner by duly restoring the Passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013, as per the plea taken by respondents No.1 to 3 in the counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition can be considered by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the event the petitioner would respond to the mail dated 26.05.2022 issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to furnish an explanation pertaining to petitioner's illegal stay in USA without a valid travel document for more than an year or in the event the petitioner approached the Indian Embassy or in the event the petitioner would apply for renewal/reissue of passport or Emergency Certificate to travel to home country. Without the petitioner approaching the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad or the nearest Indian Embassy in USA, the petitioner's request for consideration of his representation dated 01.04.2022 seeking restoration of the passport bearing No.K7908337 dated 05.07.2013 cannot be considered by the 3rd respondent, is the specific plea of the 3rd respondent. 9. This Court opines that a passport cannot be impounded on the ground of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner and in the present case it is evident that it is at the instance of the petitioner's wife that proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner for impounding of petitioner's passport on the ground of pendency of crime No.112 of 2021 registered by the Inspector of Police, P.S. Begumpet, under Sections 468, 471, 406 IPC on receipt of the complaint dated 24.03.2021 against the petitioner by petitioner's wife Smt.A.Lohitha. 10. This Court opines that pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to deny issuance or renewal or holding a passport or seeking to surrender or impound a passport. 11. 10. This Court opines that pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to deny issuance or renewal or holding a passport or seeking to surrender or impound a passport. 11. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in "VANGALA KASTURI RANGACHARYULU v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION" reported in 2020 Crl.L.J.(SC) 572 had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) 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 trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections - 420, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B of the IPC and also Section - 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse issuance of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. 12. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 INSC 615 : 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." 13. The Apex Court in "MENAKA GANDHI VS. 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." 13. The Apex Court in "MENAKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER" reported in 1978 INSC 16 : AIR 1978 SC 597 , and in "SATISH CHANDRA VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS" reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 very clearly observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of a personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed in accordance with law only and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone. The procedure must also be just, fair and reasonable. 14. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2022 APHC 9128 : 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in "GANNI BHASKARA RAO v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER" at paras 4, 5 and 6, it is observed as under: "This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport. This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction 'and' makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post-conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case / cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport. The use of the conjunction 'and' makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post-conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case / cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport. The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred to in the counter affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court." 15. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court." 15. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in particular paras 3 to 8 (referred to and extracted above) and duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Supreme Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit explanation as sought for by the 3rd respondent herein vide G-mail dated 26.05.2022, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and upon the petitioner furnishing petitioner's response to the G-mail dated 26.05.2022 duly considering the said explanation, the 3rd respondent herein is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2022 seeking restoration of the passport bearing No. K7908337 dated 05.07.2013, in accordance to law, within a period of three (03) weeks upon the petitioner furnishing the explanation to the G-mail dated 26.05.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent herein duly considering the law laid down by the AP High Court and the Apex Court in the Judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stands closed.