Rajashekar Reddy Donthula v. Government Of India And Another

G. Radha Rani, J.:— This petition is filed by the petitioner for the following relief:

“…to issue an order direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2 Respondent in not processing Passport Application No. HYD 073584351121 Dt.16/09/2021 for issuing Passport to the petitioner, as illegal arbitrary violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2 Respondent to process Application No. HYD073584351121, Dtd.16/09/2021 and issue Passport to the petitioner forthwith and pass…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the Additional Solicitor General of India.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made an application for re-issue of his passport vide application No. HYD073584351121, dated 16.09.2021. In response to his application, he was interviewed and documents verification was conducted on 01.09.2021. He received a letter dated 13.10.2021 from the 2 respondent stating that there was an adverse police verification report that he was involved in a pending Crime No. 81 of 2015 of Malakpet Police Station for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC and asked for his explanation for suppressing the same. The petitioner gave his written explanation dated 02.11.2021 stating that as there was no column relating to criminal antecedents, he could not mention the same, but when the police constable visited his house for verification, he disclosed about the criminal case and furnished the papers relating to it and that he was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in the said case. The petitioner was informed by the office staff of the 2 respondent orally that unless he was acquitted in the above crime, no passport would be issued to him. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had to visit his co-brother staying in Australia and therefore, in need of passport at the earliest. Travelling abroad was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of the 2 respondent in not issuing the passport was illegal and was in violation of his fundamental right and prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus.

4. The learned counsel representing the Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that as per Gazette notification G.S.R 570(E), Ministry of External Affairs dated 25-8-1993, the Central Government exempted citizens of India against whom the proceedings in respect of offences were pending before a criminal court in India and produced orders from the concerned courts permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, in public interest subject to certain conditions.

5. Perused the record. The record would disclose that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner vide CC No. 131 of 2016 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC registered, basing on a private complaint referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008) 3 SCC 674 held that:

“Despite criminal case filed against the petitioner, he was entitled to hold the passport since the passport had not been impounded in accordance with law. Merely because a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, he cannot be disqualified from holding a passport, when admittedly his passport has not been impounded Under Section 10(3) of Passport Act.”

6. In the light of the Gazette notification issued by the Central Government and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is considered fit to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions:

1. The petitioner is directed to make an application before VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in a prescribed format seeking permission to travel abroad;

2. The learned Judge shall consider the said application of the petitioner on merits within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by giving notice to all the parties concerned; and

3. If the court thinks fit, it may also direct the concerned authorities for issuance of passport for a short period not exceeding one year.

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.