Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 860 (AP)

Vadrevu Ravi v. Union Of India

2024-07-29

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2024
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 by declaring the action of Respondent No.2 Regional Passport Officer in not renewing the Passport of the petitioner bearing No.L8865208 which is valid from 01.05.2014 to 30.04.2024 for a further period at the instance of the 3rd Respondent and on the ground that certain criminal proceedings are pending against him and thereby disabling the petitioner to travel abroad to take part in the seminars etc., as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to renew the passport and issue such other writ or order or direction…” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. Petitioner herein is a renowned Senior Dermatologist and owned a Multispecialty Hospital in Kakinada in the name and style of Sai Sudha Hospital. He has to travel abroad frequently in order to take part in the Seminars or for giving lectures and also to attend the International Conferences of Dermatologists across the globe. 4. While so, in the year 2022 a Crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 188, 420, 384 r/w.34 of IPC, Section 53 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897. The said case is pending on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Kakinada. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached before Respondent No.2/Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam seeking renewal of his passport on 14.08.2023. In view of the settled legal position for obtaining the renewal of passport, the petitioner filed a petition before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada under Section (2)(f) and 29 of the Passport Act, 1967. The trial Court allowed the petition by imposing certain conditions on 15.12.2023. 6. While so, to the utter shock of the petitioner, on 16.12.2023 Respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the petitioner seeking certain clarification from the petitioner on two crimes pending against him. The petitioner herein is not aware of the crime registered against him vide Cr.No.308 of 2023 which is pending at P.M. Palem Police Station at Visakhapatnam. 7. 6. While so, to the utter shock of the petitioner, on 16.12.2023 Respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the petitioner seeking certain clarification from the petitioner on two crimes pending against him. The petitioner herein is not aware of the crime registered against him vide Cr.No.308 of 2023 which is pending at P.M. Palem Police Station at Visakhapatnam. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal trial against the petitioner is yet to be commenced and the petitioner has to defend his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court to prove his innocence. In the instance case, the petitioner is a renowned Senior Dermatologist has running multispecialty hospital at Kakinada and landed properties in Visakhapatnam. So, there is no question of his absconding or tampering any evidence. Thus, there could be no impediment whatsoever for Respondent No.2 to renew the passport of the petitioner, more so, when the stage of crime is still at investigating stage, and the petitioner has not been convicted as such. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner herein approached Respondent No.2 for renewal of his passport and expressed the urgency in the matter in as much as the petitioner has to travel to abroad to take part in the conference tentatively scheduled on 27.07.2024. But, Respondent No.2 declined to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing No.L8865208 and stated that the petitioner is barred from leaving the country. Hence the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Dr. Venkata Rao Vara and Union of India and others, W.P.No.4196 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024. In view of the settled principles of law, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the passport 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that when the criminal cases are pending against the applicant in any Criminal Court, the applicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Court below where case is pending along with GSR 570(E) undertaking. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that when the criminal cases are pending against the applicant in any Criminal Court, the applicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Court below where case is pending along with GSR 570(E) undertaking. Hence, if the Court gives permission to the applicant to travel abroad and directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 570(E). 12. Learned counsel for the Respondents requests this Court to direct the petitioner to submit the copy of the order of the Court below dated 15.12.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2938 of 2023 in C.C.No.21 of 2022 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada. 13. It is also further contended that in the light of the decision of the learned Judge in Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case, W.P.No.1392 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023, the petitioner is required to obtain orders from the Court below, where the C.C is pending against him. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record. 15. In Kadar Valli Shaik’s Case(3 Supra), the learned Judge had dealt with various case law on the subject and passed a detailed order., the operative portion of which reads as follows:- (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected. (b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial. (c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993. 16. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “9. 16. Further in W.P No.30373 of 2022, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the same vide orders dated 28.09.2022, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of2020 held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court. 10. The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f).” 11. In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when there is a pending proceedings before the Criminal Court after cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court.” 17. 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." 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." 18. 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." 18. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner, and renew his passport, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Cases vide Crime No.308 of 2023 on the file of the XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam and by considering the order of the Court below dated 15.12.2023 passed in C.C.No.21 of 2022 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 19. Further, the petitioner is directed to submit the copy of the order of the Court below dated 15.12.2023 passed in C.C.No.21 of 2022 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada to the Respondents. 20. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. 21. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution 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. 22. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.