Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 605 (AP)

Nusumu Venkata Rambabu v. Government Of India

2024-06-06

SUMATHI JAGADAM

body2024
ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondents, especially the 3rd respondent, in issuing impugned letters in 1) Ref.No.SCN318050443/24 dated 24.05.2024 and 2) Ref.No.SCN/317809475/24 dated 01.05.2024 in connection with the file numbers 1) VS1076408509324 and 2) VS1076408648724 respectively for re-issuing passports to the petitioners in the place of Passports bearing No.Z2959951 issued on 01.10.2014 which is valid till 30.09.2024 and Z2698378 on 30.04.2014 which is valid till 29.04.2024 respectively, on the ground that the police verification report is adverse and to declare the same as illegal and also in violation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to issue Passport to the petitioners in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioners are permanent residents of Kakinada, East Godavari District, and have been doing Crude Oil Business for the last two decades and established a limited liability firm under the name and style of ‘NBR Exports and Imports LPP’, having registered office at D.No.1-23-35/10A, Ayodhya Nagar, Ward No.9, Diary Firm Centre, Kakinada, East Godavari District. One Smt. Gudiwada Sailaja, resident of Hyderabad, joined the firm as a partner with 23% shares and entered into a Partnership Deed in the month of July 2018. As per the Partnership Deed, every partner receives monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 12.02.2020, Smt. Gudiwada Sailaja has lodged a complaint with the 5th respondent and it is registered as Crime No.11 of 2020 on the file of the Station House Officer, C.I.D. Police Station, Amaravathi at Mangalagiri for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B read with 34 of IPC. 3. The 5th respondent has served a notice to the petitioners under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., for which the petitioners submitted their explanation through WhatsApp on 12.10.2021 and personally appeared before the 6th respondent and gave their explanation. Thereafter, the 6th respondent issued a Look Out Circular (LOC). As such, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.7085 of 2022 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.11 of 2020. On 08.09.2022, this Court has granted an interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.11 of 2020 for a period of eight weeks, thereafter, it was extended from time to time. 4. The 1st petitioner's Passport bearing No.Z2959951 will expire on 30.09.2024 and the 2nd petitioner's Passport bearing No.Z2698378 will expired on 29.04.2024. On 08.09.2022, this Court has granted an interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.11 of 2020 for a period of eight weeks, thereafter, it was extended from time to time. 4. The 1st petitioner's Passport bearing No.Z2959951 will expire on 30.09.2024 and the 2nd petitioner's Passport bearing No.Z2698378 will expired on 29.04.2024. As the petitioners are business persons and the 1st petitioner is a member of the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) since 2006, they made an application for re-issuance of the said Passports vide Application Nos.VS1076408509324 and VS1076408648724. Though appointment was fixed by the respondents on 28.03.2023, the authorities refused to re-issue the Passport to the petitioners on the ground that police verification is pending. The further case of the petitioners is that it is the only crime pending against them, and earlier, the petitioners filed W.P.No.10140 of 2024 seeking direction to the 3rd respondent to issue a Passport to them. Pending the said writ petition, the respondents have issued letters dated 01.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 stating that there is some adverse report in connection with Crime No.11 of 2020 which is not a bar to issue/renew passports. In view of the same, the said writ petition was withdrawn seeking liberty. 5. Heard Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Manchala Uma Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7. 6. The contentions raised by the petitioners are that the petitioners are business persons and have been running the business for two decades. The 1st petitioner is a member of the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) since 2006 and he has to attend a conference which is scheduled to be held in the months of June and July and this is the only crime registered against them and this Court has granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the crime. It is the further submission of the petitioners that on 01.05.2024 and 24.05.2024, the 3rd respondent has asked the petitioners to furnish supporting documents and clarification and to produce the order of the Court regarding the current status of the case and also an explanation for suppressing information in the application. It is the further submission of the petitioners that on 01.05.2024 and 24.05.2024, the 3rd respondent has asked the petitioners to furnish supporting documents and clarification and to produce the order of the Court regarding the current status of the case and also an explanation for suppressing information in the application. It is the further submission of the petitioners that it is not a bar to renew/issue a Passport as per the existing passport Rules and prayed to consider the application bearing Nos.24-1003924389 and 24-1003925467 dated 28.03.2024 respectively, for renewal of Passports. 7. It is the further submission of the petitioners that it is not a bar to renew/issue a Passport as per the existing passport Rules and prayed to consider the application bearing Nos.24-1003924389 and 24-1003925467 dated 28.03.2024 respectively, for renewal of Passports. 7. The relevant provision of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, is extracted hereinunder: Relevant provisions of issue and renewal of Passports 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 subsection (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. 8. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, has been considered on several occasions by the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. 8. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, has been considered on several occasions by the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl.Appeal No.1342/2017 dated 27.09.2021 held that, the Passport authority cannot refuse renewal of the Passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal appeal and directed the Passport authority to renew the Passport. (ii) The learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Ahamed Fahath vs. The Regional Passport Officer, W.P.No.20058 of 2020 dated 04.02.2021 held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular Passport to the petitioners and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court, it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court. (iii) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 (15) SCC 570 observed at para 13 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." 9. While referring to the aforesaid provisions of law, it is submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the Passport issuing authority is empowered to issue a Passport for a shorter period also. The discretion conferred by the authority cannot be interfered with. However, having regard to the above reasons, prescription of one year period for Passport renewal, according to Gazette Notification, vide G.S.R.570 (E), dated 25.08.1993, cannot be resorted to. 10. It is submitted that the petitioners have already filed Crl.P.No.7085 of 2022 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.11 of 2020, and this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.11 of 2020 and the same was extended from time to time. This Court has no hesitation to hold that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, would arise when there is pending proceedings before the criminal Court. In the present case, the matter is still pending at the stage of investigation. 11. This Court has no hesitation to hold that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, would arise when there is pending proceedings before the criminal Court. In the present case, the matter is still pending at the stage of investigation. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to renew the petitioners’ passport Nos.Z2959951 and Z2698378, on receipt of necessary information/clarification from the petitioners as per the letters dated 01.05.2024 and 24.05.2024, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without reference to the pendency of Cr.No.11 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B read with 34 I.P.C, on the file of the Station House Officer, C.I.D., P.S., Amaravathi, Mangalagiri. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.