Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Pediredia Sagar vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2026
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010105782026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 5942/2026
Between:
1. PEDIREDIA SAGAR,, S/O NAGESWARA RAO AGED 23
YEARS,R/O 71-31-16/1,ALLURI SEETARAMA RAJU
STREET,NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, VISAKHAPATNAM,
ANDHRA PRADESH,PIN 530011
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, ,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY
OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,SOUTH BLOCK SECRETARIAT,
RAISING HILLS,NEW DELHI.
2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL
PASSPORT OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM,NEARP.F-
OFFICE,BESIDERYTHU BAZAR,MARRIPALEM,VUDA
LAYOUT, NAD POST,VISAKHAPATNAM-530009
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, III TOWN POLICE
STATION,VISAKHAPATNAM CITY VISAKHAPATNAM.PIN-
530003
...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 an appropriate writ order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus
declare the action of the respondents in not considering the
passport of the petitioners vide application
NO.VS05C5002125523 dated 05-05-2025 due to the pendency of
the Criminal case No.Crime No.456/2022 on the file of III Town
police station, Visakhapatnam City is highly arbitrary, illegal,
improper, contrary to law and against the principles of natural
justice and in violation of Articles 14,19,21 of the constitution of
SRK, J
W.P.No.5942 of 2026
2
India and also against the passport Act ,1967 and rules therein
and consequently direct the respondents to issue passport
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 respondents forthwith
to issue the passport to the petitioner pending disposal of the
above writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M. SAPTHAGIRI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
SRK, J
W.P.No.5942 of 2026
3
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the
action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s
passport application vide No.VS05C5002125523 dated 05.05.2025
due to the pendency of Crime No.456 of 2022 of III Town Police
Station, Visakhapatnam city as arbitrary, illegal, improper, contrary
to law and against the principles of natural justice and in violation
of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently, direct the respondents to issue passport and pass
such other order or orders …”
2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in
brief, are that the Writ Petitioner is native of Visakhapatnam
District; he studied B.Com., and was doing a private job; that a
case in Crime No.456 of 2022 of III Town Police Station,
Visakhapatnam city for the offences punishable under Sections 3
and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (for brevity ‘the
Act, 1974’) was registered against the Writ Petitioner and other
persons; that the Writ Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.9 in the
said crime, and investigation is pending in the said case.
(b) The Writ Petitioner applied for Passport before 2nd
respondent, but as the aforesaid crime was registered and
investigation is pending, the Writ Petitioner was denied to issue
passport. The Writ Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he got an
SRK, J
W.P.No.5942 of 2026
4
offer to travel officially in regard to work related purpose; that mere
pendency of a crime cannot be treated as an automatic
disqualification for issuance of a Passport. Hence, the Writ
Petition.
3. During arguments, learned counsel for the Writ
Petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the Writ Petition
affidavit.
4. Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the
Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would
contend that in response to the application made by the Writ
Petitioner, a notice was issued to him with regard to pendency of
crime, which was registered against him, but the Writ Petitioner
did not choose to file any response from his side. In view of the
said reason, vide Letter dated 05.03.2025, the Writ Petitioner was
informed that the application for issuance of passport, which was
filed by the Writ Petitioner, was closed and appropriate notice has
also been placed in the Official website viz.
www.passportindia.gov.in, in the section ‘Track Status’, against
the file number. According to the learned counsel, the Writ
Petitioner may, however, apply for fresh passport with all the
documents and requisite fee, anytime at the Passport Seva
SRK, J
W.P.No.5942 of 2026
5
Kendra near to the place of Writ Petitioner, by quoting the
previous file number at the appropriate places in the relevant
forms.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner
submits that the Writ Petition may be disposed of, permitting the
Writ Petitioner to make a fresh application along with documents
by paying requisite fees for issuance of passport.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the
Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the Writ Petitioner to file
fresh application before the respondent-authorities, for issuance of
passport by quoting the previous file number wherever necessary.
No costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
9th March, 2026.
DNB
