I32s2l

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 32906 OF 2023

Between:
Ravikanti Venkatesham, S/o Agaiah, Aged 53 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o
H. No.1-'l 77113/5, Road No.2, Maruthi Nagar, Mancherial, Mancherial District.

...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs,
South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi, lndia.
2. The Regional Passport Officer, O/o. The Regional Passport Office, 73, Red
Cross Road, Shivaji Nagar, Secunderabad, Telangana.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be

pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of
WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not
renewing petitioner's Passport bearing No.K5561052 pursuant to the application
vide File number HY75C5008204523 dated 271O112023 on the ground of pending
Criminal Case vide CC. No.391/2O22 lJls. 420 rlw 34 of IPC on the file of
ll Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Mancherial as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional, in violation of principles, of natural justice and contrary to the
provisions of The Passports Act, 1967 And consequently direct the 2nd respondent
to renew petitioners passport bearing No.K5561052 pursuant to the application
daled 2710112023 without reference to the said criminal case.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct
the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application vide File number
HY75C5008204523 dated 2710112023 for renewal of Passport bearing
No.K556'1052 without reference to Criminal Case vide CC. No.391/2022 Uls. 420
rlw 34 of IPC on the file of ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at

Mancherial pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI [Link] REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT [Link] LAKSHMI, REP. FOR

SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,
Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA

The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION No.329OG OF 2023

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

Smt. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner has approached the Court seeking

the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS
declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not
renewing petitioner's Passport bearing No K5561052
pursuant to the application vide File number
HY75C5008204523 dated 27-07-2023 on the ground of
pending Criminal Case vide CC No. 397/2022 U/s. 420
r/w 34 of IPC on the file of II Additional ludicial First
Class Magistrate at Mancherial as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional in violation of principles of natural
justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passports
Act t967 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to
renew petitioner's passport bearing No.K5561052
pursuant to the application dated 27-0l-2023 without
reference to the said criminal case and be pleased to
pass such other order or orders as may deern fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

'.i
2

a) The petitioner is resident of Mancherial town and his

passport vide No.K5561052 was valid up to 21.01.2023.
On
27.01.2023, the petitioner made application to respondent
No.2
vide file No.Hy75C500B2O4S23 to renew passport as per
the
procedure under passports Act, 1967.

b) After several oral requests by the petitioner, the 2nd

respondent informed that the petitioner involved in criminal

case vide [Link].391 of 2022 under Section 420 read with
34
IPC on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Mancherial, hence, petitioner,s passport cannot be renewed.
Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

RU THE REC D

4. This Court opines that pendency of criminal case against

the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny renewal of passport to

the petitioner and the right to [Link] wourd incrude not

only the right to travel abroad but also the right to possess a

Passport.

5. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2O13

(15) SCC page 57O in Sumit Mehta Vs. 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
J

6. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India

and another reported in AIR 1928 SC 597, and in Satish

Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others
reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 very ctearly
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.
7. Respondent No.2 cannot deny renewal of passport to the

petitioner on the ground that Criminal Case is pending against

the petitioner. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in

2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 in "Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v.

Centra! Bureau of fnvestigation" 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 (t)
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 - 420,468,47L and 477A read

with 1208 of the IPC and atso Section - t3 (2) read with Section

t
4

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 penc,ing.
Therefore,
considering the said facts, the Apex
Court held that passport
Authority cannot refuse renewal of
the passport on the ground
of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court
directed the passport Authority to renew/issue
the passport of
the applicant without raising the objection
relating to the
pendency of the aforesaid criminal
case.
8. In the judgment dated Og.O4.2022 ot the Andhra
Pradesh High Court reported in 2O23 (4)
ALT 4O6 (Ap) in
Ganni Bhaskara Rao Vs, Union of India
and another at
paras 4, 5 and 6, it is observed as
under:

"This Court after hearing both the learned

notices that the Hon,ble_-Supr"." Cor.t'of counset
India, in
criminat Appeat No.1342_of zoiz-, wlf ilaltng
a person, who was convicted by the Court with
appeal is pending for decision init" Srp..meand his
The conviction was however .t"Vej. t rn Court.
those
circumstances atso it_ was rrela ffrii itre passport
authority cannot refuse the ,,;;;;;;i,
passport, of the

This Court also holds that merel y because

a person is an
accused in a case it cannot be s aid that
he cannot ,'hold,,
or possess a passport. er ur nc ev
s su ed o n s R ven
it her or t m fa th crr na
s n ln a rns
ca
he rs nls a ro d o
ry/
/'i
)

con e th ca n not o e r td as or
E en er cti 1 d of EP s t h
DA ssDo rt
ca nbe tmD ound edo nlv i f the hol er as
en nvr dof n ffe e volv m r
tur oitu de" to lmDr !son en of not less tha ntw o
vea rs. The use oF the conjunction 'and' makes
that b oth the ingredienti must be [Link] Every
clear
conviction is not a ground to im pound the passport.
tsl th st ati If
VI n th on
f ts u th en n f as ca srs ot
qr und to refuse ren ewa! or to
dema nd he
sur end rof o
9' Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, and dury taking into consideration
the raw
laid down in the above said judgments (referred to
and
extracted above), the writ petition is disposed of
directing the 2nd Respondent-passport officer to consider
the application No.Hy75C5OO82O4523 of the petitioner
dated 27.O1-.ZOZ3 seeking renewal of petitaoner,s
passport, within a period of one week from
the date of
receipt of a copy of this order without retating
it to the
pendency of the proceedings in [Link].39
I of 2O22 on
the file of II
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mancheriat. However, there shafl be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.

SD/ P IMA
//TRUE COPYII ASSISTAN REG
To,
SECTI
1 The P nncipal Secre
tary, Minis try of External
Raisi na Hill ,NewD A ffairs South Block
elhi
2. The Regi onal pass po Union ofl ndia. Secretariat,
rt Officer,
c ross Road, Shivaji N a gar, O/o. The Regi onal pass port I
3. One CC to SRt p Secu nderabad Tel Office, 73, Red
LAKS HMA RE DDY , angana
4. One CC to SRt G , Advoca te loPU cl i
ADI PRAVEE NK UMAR,
High Cou rt for the Dy. SOLI CITOR
Sta te of Tela ngana i

5. Two CD Copies at H yderabad oPucI G EN. OF INDIA I

BSR I
s
il
HIGH COURT

DATED: 0511212023

1Y\ e
srAi€ o
(
ORDER (r -l-
-)
i
,

() I 0E[ 2[n ,t)

[Link].32906 of 2023 ,+
+
t c(.'
:a-

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS
a

€ (.)