Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Dadi Subba Rao vs The Union Of India on 10 March, 2025
APHC010099942025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 5311/2025
Between:
1. DADI SUBBA RAO, S/O LATE SAMBA SIVA RAO AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS, OCC RETIRED TEACHER
2. DADI VENKATA LAXMI RAJYAM, W/O DADI SUBBA RAO AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF H.NO. 1-147/I, SOUTH
BAZAR, RAMALAYAM, PERAVALI VILLAGE, VEMURU MANDAL,
BAPATLA DIST
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTERY OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI
2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, O/O REGIONAL PASSPORT
OFFICE, 4TH PIOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158,
GOVERNORPET, M.G.ROAD VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 Mandamus, declaring the inaction of Respondent No.2 not issued passport
applications vide File No.VJB066394821924 dated 26.03.2024 of petitioner
No.l, VJB066394782724 dated 26.03.2024 of Petitioner No.2 without
considering the explanation dated 17.04.2024 is highly illegal, arbitrary and
Page 2 of 6
SRS,J
W.P.No.5311 of 2025
against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21
and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent
No.2 to consider the explanation dated 17.04.2024 issue the pass port of the
petitioners through their application File No.VJB066394821924 dated
26.03.2024 of petitioner No.l, VJB066394782724 dated 26.03.2024 of
Petitioner No.2 in the interest of justice and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 respondent No.2 to consider the explanation dated 17.04.2024
issue the pass port of the petitioners through their application File
No.VJB066394821924 dated 26.03.2024 of petitioner No.l,
VJB066394782724 dated 26.03.2024 of Petitioner No.2in the interest of
justice pending writ petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VSRMV PRASAD SANAKA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT.
The Court made the following:
:: ORDER :
:
The above writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondent
No.2 in re-issuing/renewing the passports of the petitioners, in pursuance of
applications vide File Nos.VJB066394821924 & VJB066394782724, dated
26.03.2024, without considering the explanation dated 17.03.2024, as illegal
and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri Naga Anjaneyulu, learned counsel representing Sri VSRMV
Prasad Sankara, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jupudi Yagnadutt,
learned counsel representing Sri G. Sai Nrayana Rao, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2.
Page 3 of 6
SRS,J
W.P.No.5311 of 2025
3. The 1st petitioner is a retired Government employee, and the 2nd
petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd son of the petitioners has
been residing in Scotland, due to his employment. The petitioners have made
applications to respondent No.2 vide Exs.P1 & P2, for issuance of passports.
In the applications, it was mentioned that a criminal case vide C.C.No.1990 of
2021 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4
of DP Act, is pending on the file of the learned XII Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Medchal. Thereafter, show-cause notices dated 02.04.2024 vide
Exs.P3 & P5, were issued to the petitioners by respondent No.2, calling upon
the petitioners to submit an explanation. The petitioners approached
respondent No.2 and submitted an explanation. The petitioners have filed
Crl.P.No.5295 of 2022 before the Telangana High Court, wherein the learned
Single Judge granted a stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.1990 of 2021,
concerning the petitioners arrayed as A2 & A3. In respect of A1 (elder son),
there is a direction to proceed with the criminal case.
4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that due to the pendency of a
criminal case against the petitioners, respondent No.2 did not issue a passport
to the petitioners. Learned Assistant Government pleader and standing
counsel would contend that since a criminal case is pending before the
jurisdictional magistrate and the Court has taken cognisance, the petitioner
has to approach the concerned court.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether non-issuance of a passport, due to the pendency of a
criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act,
is legally sustainable?
6. Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Act’), envisages applications for passports, travel documents etc. and others
Page 4 of 6
SRS,J
W.P.No.5311 of 2025
thereon. Section 6 of the Act envisages refusal of passports, travel documents
etc.
7. Section 6 (2) (f) of the Act is extracted herewith:
(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 sub-section (2) of section 5 on any
one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:
……..
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been
committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
8. Mere pendency of a criminal case does not mean that the guilt against
the accused is proved. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v State of
NCT of Delhi, observed as follows:
“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. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision reported in
Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others, 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.”
10. In the case at hand, no doubt a criminal case vide C.C.No.1990 of
2021, is pending. However, the learned Single Judge of Telangana High Court
Page 5 of 6
SRS,J
W.P.No.5311 of 2025
in Crl.P.No.5295 of 2022, granted a stay of all further proceedings in
C.C.No.1990 of 2021 in respect of the petitioners. The petitioners approaching
the learned magistrate, given the stay in the criminal case, will not serve any
purpose. Keeping the expressions of the Apex Court in the referred
judgments, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the authorities to consider
the applications made by the petitioners for issuance of passports.
11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and since a stay was
granted by the Telangana High Court in the aforementioned criminal case,
respondents 1 & 2 shall process the applications made by the petitioners as
per the provisions of the Act, within three (03) weeks, from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 10.03.2025
TVN
Page 6 of 6
SRS,J
W.P.No.5311 of 2025
198
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.5311 OF 2025
Date : 10.03.2025
TVN