JUDGMENT : 1. The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: “…pleased to pass an order or orders or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not renewing the Petitioner’s Passport No.K7648178 (Application No.VJ2075686977923) purportedly on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, irrational, contrary to the provisions of The Passports Act, 1967 besides being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass...” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner herein is employed as the Chief Executive Director at Andhra Pradesh Mercantile Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Due to his nature of employment, the petitioner is required to travel abroad to attend meetings and conferences. The petitioner is a holder of the Indian passport, bearing No.K7648178, due to expiry of the same, the petitioner made an application vide application vide file No.VJ2075686977923, dated 16.08.2023 before the respondent-authorities seeking renewal and issuance of a fresh passport. Pursuant to which, the petitioner attended the enquiry before the respondent-authorities on 17.08.2023 and submitted all the relevant and required documents to the respondent-authorities. The petitioner after a lapse of time upon checking the status of the passport renewal application came to know that, “the police verification report is not clear and application is under review at regional passport office.” 3. It is further submitted that, the petitioner’s bank during its course of business transactions found that few of its customers, have opened accounts in a dubious manner and have committed fraud with which the petitioner is no way concerned. It is further submitted that, the petitioner’s bank during its course of business transactions found that few of its customers, have opened accounts in a dubious manner and have committed fraud with which the petitioner is no way concerned. Without conducting proper verification and investigation, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 falsely arrayed the petitioner as one of the accused and lodged several cases against the petitioner bearing F.I.R. No.153 of 2021, dated 27.09.2021, on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, U/s,419, 420, 465, 467, F.I.R.No.154 of 2021, dated 27.09.2021, on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, U/s.409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, R/w.34 IPC, F.I.R. No.157 of 2021, dated 30.09.2021, on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, U/s. 409, 419, 420, 465, 467,468 and 471, R/w.34 IPC, F.I.R. No.264 of 2021, dated 14.10.2021, on the file of Atkuru Police Station, Vijayawada, U/s.420, 468, 471, 406 of IPC, , and 471, R/w.34 IPC and F.I.R.No.588 of 2021, dated 15.10.2021 on the file of Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada, U/s.419, 420, 468 of IPC. 4. It is further submitted that with the cooperation of the petitioner to the investigating-authorities, the petitioner was granted bail. However, it is pertinent to mention here that till date, neither the police filed the final reports nor the jurisdictional Courts taken cognizance in any of the cases lodged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that, respondent No.2 authority has issued the impugned proceedings vide Letter Ref No.SCN/316149133/23, dated 06.11.2023 titled clarifications required regarding passport issuing facilities to the petitioner. The contents of the Impugned proceedings are that the respondent No.2 received an adverse Police verification Report corresponding to the passport of the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is involved in a Criminal Case. It is further stated that the Petitioner is directed to submit his explanation at the passport Office, Visakhapatnam within 30 working days of issuance of the Notice. But, neither the Police Verification Report nor the Show-cause Notice are reflecting the criminal cases pending which resulted in the Adverse/Negative Police Verification Report, furnished to the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after receipt of the notice dated 08.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner did not submit any explanation, due to the reasons as stated above. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after receipt of the notice dated 08.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner did not submit any explanation, due to the reasons as stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, respondent No.2 authority has issued the impugned proceedings vide Letter Ref No.FCI/318484947/24, dated 15.07.2024 titled File closure notification for passport application No.VJ2075686977923. Wherein it is stated that, the petitioner is requested to appear in person along with the desired documents on or before 01.08.2024, failing which, it will be presumed that the petitioner got nothing to say with regard to the passport verification. 7. He further submits that, pursuant to the two letters addressed by respondent No.2 dated 06.11.2023 and 15.07.2024, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 02.08.2024, requesting for extension of time for personal hearing and also requested respondent No.2 to consider his application bearing No.VJ2075686977923 for renewal and reissue the passport on the ground that, no cognizance has been taken by the Courts in respect of the crimes registered against the petitioner and there are no criminal proceedings pending before the Criminal Court against the petitioner. He further stated that, the words “Pending before the criminal court” do not qualify for warranting an action of impounding the passport. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Sannareddy Sudheer Kumar vs. The Union of India and others, MANU/AP/1733/2022; W.P.No.22049 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022. 9. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted the written instructions furnished by respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that after detailed investigation, the Investigation Officer filed charged sheet before the Special Session Judge for SPE & ACB Cases cum III Additional District and Session Judge, Vijayawada, dated 08.01.2024 vide C.F.No.120/2024, C.C. number is awaited. It is further stated that respondent No.3 is no way concerned in respect of issuance of notice to the petitioner but by respondent No.2 only and also stated that, all the allegations leveled by the petitioner against respondent No.3 are incorrect, baseless and misconceived. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others, 2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP). 11. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Kadar Valli Shaik vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others, 2023 (3) ALD 213 (AP). 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.3 to 5 and also perused the material placed on record. 12. For more understanding, Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is extracted hereunder: “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. 13. The issue of renewal of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. 13. The issue of renewal of passport is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2) of the act, extracted below is relevant for this purpose. 14. 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. 15. In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others, W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023, 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: "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 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." 16. 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 order of respondent No.2 issued vide Letter Ref No.SCN/316166583/23, dated 08.11.2023 is hereby set-aside. 17. 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 order of respondent No.2 issued vide Letter Ref No.SCN/316166583/23, dated 08.11.2023 is hereby set-aside. 17. 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 VJ2075686977923 without referring to the criminal case i.e. F.I.R. No.153 of 2021, dated 27.09.2021, on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, U/s,419, 420, 465, 467, F.I.R.No.154 of 2021, dated 27.09.2021, on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, U/s.409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, R/w.34 IPC, F.I.R. No.157 of 2021, dated 30.09.2021, on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, U/s. 409, 419, 420, 465, 467,468 and 471, R/w.34 IPC, F.I.R. No.264 of 2021, dated 14.10.2021, on the file of Atkuru Police Station, Vijayawada, U/s.420, 468, 471, 406 of IPC, , and 471, R/w.34 IPC and F.I.R.No.588 of 2021, dated 15.10.2021 on the file of Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada, U/s.419, 420, 468 of IPC 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. 18. It is found that, the charge sheet is already filed. Therefore, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission or NOC from the Special Session Judge for SPE & ACB Cases cum III Additional District and Session Judge, Vijayawada. 19. This order shall not preclude respondent No.2 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.