IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16331 of 2008 Between: Mekala Srinivas S/o. Gattaiah H.No. 1-5-11, Cinema Road Street, Vemulavada, Karimnagar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, d Ministry of External Affairs, Rep. by its Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, Adjacent Prashant Theatre, Near Clock Tower, Secunderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Police Station, Vemulavada, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein 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 1st Respondent in not issuing passport on the ground that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner on the basis of a report from the 2nd respondent that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner in by the impugned Letter No. HYDAO 1151507 dt. 22- 3-2007 of the 1st respondent though no criminal case is registered or pending against the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to issue passport to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Mekala Srinivas assailing the proceedings in Lr.No.HYDAO1151507, dated 22.03.2007 of the 1st respondent whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner seeking passport has been treated as closed. 2. The petitioner is a resident of Cinema Road Street, Vemulavada, Karimnagar,. He applied for passport vide ﬁle No.HYDAO1151507. His application came to be not considered by the 1st respondent on the ground of criminal case being registered against him in Crime No.179 of 2006 of P.S.Vemulavada. The proceedings issued by the 1st respondent whereunder the application of the petitioner came to be closed are under challenge in this writ petition. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer para.4 of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder: “4) I submit that I have approached the 2nd respondent under whose jurisdiction I am residing to further ﬁnd out whether there is any case against me. With diﬃculty, I could take out the information in Crime No.179/2006 of P.S. Vemulavada dated 26/07/2006 whereunder, a case was registered under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. In the above case, the allegations are against one Gattu Suresh, S/o.Sailu who was found in possession of 35 beer bottles and 60 quarter bottles of Whisky. The said bottles are said to have been purchased from M.Srinivas who is the owner of Ganesh Wines, Vemulavada. I am not connected with the same whatsoever. I submit that though no criminal case is pending against me, the 1st respondent has rejected my application for passport and the 2nd respondent seems to have given wrong report. I submit that since my eﬀorts to get the passport has not yielded any results, I am constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court since the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.” 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 29.07.2008. 4. 1st respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. B.Bala Bhaskar Rao, Regional Passport Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter- affidavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the petitioner is an accused in an excise oﬀence and the case is pending for trial and therefore, his application for grant of passport came to be closed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no case particulars have been furnished by the 1st respondent in the proceedings served on the petitioner and in which case the proceedings whereunder his application seeking passport came to be closed cannot be sustained. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the 1st respondent submits that as per the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, in case any criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant, his application is liable to be rejected. Learned Standing Counsel refers Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, which reads as hereunder: “6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc. :- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any country under clause (b) or clause [c] of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:- a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country; d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest. (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:- (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India; (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (c) that the departure of the applicant from India ;may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of ﬁve years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any oﬀence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (f) that proceedings in respect of an oﬀence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.” 8. I have gone through the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. The reason for closure of the passport application of the petitioner is because of the registration of crime against the petitioner. Copy of the FIR in Crime No.179 of 2006 of Vemulawada P.S. registered for the oﬀence under Section 34(a) of the A.P.Excise Act has been placed on record. The petitioner has been shown as 2nd accused in Crime No.179 of 2006 of Vemulawada P.S. In view of registration of the crime against the petitioner, the 1st respondent is justiﬁed in closing the application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking passport. As and when the said criminal case is disposed of, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his application seeking passport. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage reserving the liberty to the petitioner to renew the passport application after disposal of the criminal case registered against him in Cr.No.179 of 2006 of Vemulavada P.S. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:21st October, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}