APHC010281102026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3548]

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION NO: 14514/2026

Between:

1. THATHAMSETTY NAGENDRA, S/O. VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED

ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4/157, BALIJA STREET, RAILWAY

KODURTOWN AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE

ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT), ANDHRA PRADESH - 516101. .

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI -110001.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HOME DEPARTMENT,

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522239.

3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, REP BY ITS REGIONAL

PASSPORT OFFICER. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 4TH

FLOOR, STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO. 27 -37-158, GOYERNORPET,

M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA- 520002

4. THE RAILWAY KODUR URBAN POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS

SHO, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 516101

...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

2

pleased topleased to pass an order or orders or direction, more particularly

one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the

Respondent No.3 in not re-issuing / renewal of the Petitioner's Passport

pursuant to Petitioner's Application No. VJF076628698126 purportedly on the

ground of pendency of Crime No.69 of 2026 on the file of the SHO, Railway

Kodur Police Station, Tirupati District against the Petitioner herein as

arbitrary, illegal, unjust, irrational, contrary to the provisions of the Passports

Act, 1967 besides being violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution

of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 herein to forth with re

issue / renew the Passport in favor of the Petitioner herein and/or pass

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

pleased to DIRECT the Respondent No.3 herein to re-issue / renew the

Passport in favor of the Petitioner herein pursuant to the Petitioner’s

Application No. VJF076628698126 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SIDDILINGAM GANESH NANDA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2.

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION NO: 14514/2026

ORDER:

Heard Sri N.Ganesh Nanda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The writ petition is moved by the petitioner for Writ of Mandamus being

aggrieved for not renewing the petitioner’s passport by respondent No.3

pursuant to the application No.VJF076628698126 purportedly on the ground

of pendency of Crime No.69 of 2026 on the file of the Station House Officer,

Railway Kodur (U) Police Station, Tirupati District.

3. The facts of the case germane to decide the lis and the contentions in

the affidavit are as follows:

(a) The petitioner was issued the passport vide Application

No.N6005977 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad which is

valid upto 21.12.2025 and as the period lapsed and expired, an application

was submitted on 01.04.2026, for renewal of the passport, to respondent

No.3 through the Passport Seva Kendra, Railway Koduru, with the application

Reference No. (ARN) 26-1055514164 with file No.VJF076628698126. The

receipt of the said application dated 01.04.2026 was annexed to the petition

as Ex.P.2.

4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as on the date of

submitting the application for issuance / renewal, there was no crime or

criminal proceedings pending and the complaint was instituted only on the

next day of submitting the application for renewal i.e. on 02.04.2026. A false

complaint was filed by Ms.Iskapatla Harsha Veena, a crime was registered

against the petitioner in Crime No.69 of 2026 on the file of Railway Koduru (U)

Police Station, Tirupati District for the offences punishable under Sections

118(1), 79, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015

and in the said complaint, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.1 and as

on today, investigation is in progress and no final report is filed nor cognizance

is taken by the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction.

5. In another case, the petitioner, in Crime No.150 of 2024, was arrayed

as accused No.2 on the file of the Railway Kodur (U) Police Station for the

offences punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short, ‘IPC’) and after investigation on the final report, the learned Magistrate

of First Class, Railway Kodur, after evaluating prima facie case, in the light of

the evidence and findings recorded by the investigating agency, the

cognizance was taken only against accused No.1 and refused to take the

cognizance against the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as accused No.2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the same, the

5

petitioner is deemed to be effectively discharged from Crime No.150 of 2024

and to be treated as no criminal proceedings pending against him. In view of

the said fact, the passport, cannot be denied to be renewed under Section

6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967.

6. The learned counsel for petitioner further to substantiate his contentions

stated that in pursuance of the investigation in Crime No.150 of 2024, a

charge sheet in C.C.No.243 of 2024 was filed on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur and the summons were

issued to accused No.1 and not to the accused No.2 i.e., the petitioner herein,

and only the name of the petitioner is reflecting in the criminal proceedings.

The learned counsel would further submit that in order to satisfy this Court that

in corollary, the petitioner is deemed to be discharged from the said crime/

C.C.No.243 of 2024 and need to file a certified copy of cognizance order

passed by the Court as per the procedure contemplated under the Andhra

Pradesh Criminal Rules of Practice, but in view of paucity of time and the said

process of making an application to obtain a certified copy also consumes

considerable time, the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to file web copies of

the case status in C.C.No.243 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Railway Kodur. There is no separate Interlocutory

Application filed by the petitioner to dispense with or seeking leave of this

Court. But, the statement is made in the affidavit that the petitioner undertakes

6

to file certified copy of cognizance order as and when obtained and as per the

directions of this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in pursuance of

the application, respondent No.3 issued a notice, dated 16.04.2026 bearing

File No.VJF076628698126 and letter Ref.No.SCN/1054609091/26 reciting

that the petitioner has suppressed material information in his passport

application regarding pendency of the criminal proceedings pending against

him and the petitioner was called upon to provide a suitable explanation within

30 days failing which, the passport application would be rejected. As

stipulated, an explanation was submitted on 30.04.2026 by the petitioner

through e-mail for which, a reply was communicated directing the petitioner to

approach the office with all relevant documents. The petitioner visited the

office of respondent No.3 on 07.05.2026 substantiating that there is no

criminal case pending against the petitioner and also that mere pendency of

criminal cases / criminal proceedings, the renewal or re-issuance of passport

cannot be denied contrary to law which is established. Regarding non-

mentioning of the particulars in the application, the petitioner fortifies that

Crime No.69 of 2026 was registered after submission of the application and

with respect to Crime No.150 of 2024, he submitted to the authorities that the

petitioner was effectively discharged by corollary of law and the documents,

in-support, were deposited before respondent No.3 and requested to process

the application.

7

8. Presently, the learned counsel for the petitioner projected his arguments

contending that after the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 29.04.2026,

till date the application was kept on hold without passing any orders and

thereby, no reasons are indicated as to why the said application was not acted

upon. The status of the application is also annexed to the petition. Learned

counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to Section

6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. Section 6(2)(f), which is relevant is extracted

hereunder:

“6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.

---

(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;

9. To establish his arguments that as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the

requirement is that the offence which is pending before the Criminal Court to

be taken into consideration and any crime which is not taken cognizance by

the Magistrate and mere pendency of the criminal case cannot construe that

the criminal proceedings are pending before the competent Court and thereby,

denied the refusal of renewal of passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport

Act.

8

10. In support to his arguments advanced, learned counsel would submit

that this Court in W.P.No.5769 of 2026 and batch categorically observed that

mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be taken as the legal

basis for denial of issuance of regular passport to the petitioner and that only

after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court the same can be withheld

and denied. But in the present case, there is no cognizance taken by the

competent criminal Court and only the pendency of one crime cannot be a fact

to deny the issuance of passport. With regard to the other accused, the

learned counsel would submit that by way of corollary of law, the petitioner,

who was shown as accused No. 2, is deemed to be discharged. Presently, he

was not issued summons by the competent criminal Court and there would be

no justification for denying to renew the passport and any action denying the

renewal would be contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India in view of

the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Apex Court in

Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam and others

1

wherein it is held

that the Right to Travel is indeed a fundamental right and the same cannot be

arbitrarily and illegally denied by the State and that no person can be deprived

of his Right to Travel except according to procedure established by law.

11. In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi

2

, the Hon’ble Apex Court at

para No.13 observed as follows:

1

AIR 1967 SC 1836

2

2013(15) SCC 570

9

"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."

12. In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others

3

, the

Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.5 observed as follows:

"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."

13. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India

4

, the Hon’ble Apex Court held

that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law

enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just

procedure. The relevant Para No.5 is extracted as under:

"5. Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go

abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing

the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is

effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was

for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of

3

MANU/SC/0826/2019

4

1978 (1) SCC 248

10

Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967

for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the

provisions of the Passport may be issued or refused or

canceled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for

doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient

compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort

of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any

particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be

arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded

by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour

frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that

any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust

may be prescribed by the law. Therefore, such a right to

travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and

reasonable procedure."

14. This Court in similar circumstances in W.P.No.13133 of 2025 in a case

of Ravi Ramesh v. Union of India

5

by Order dated 09.05.2025, was pleased

to held that in the case at hand the, jurisdictional Court has not taken any

cognizance and mere pendency of crime is not a bar for renewing/re-issuing

the passport.

15. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Vagala Venkata Siva Kumar v. The State of Andhra

Pradesh on 2 February, 2021; Criminal Revision Case Nos.475 and 478 of

2020, this Court vide para No.14 has observed that:

5

2015 Live Law AP 88

11

Para 14: 14. As per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the

passport authority shall refuse to issue passport or travel document

for visiting any foreign country, if criminal proceedings are pending

against the applicant in India. A bare reading of the Passport Act,

1967 reveals that there is no absolute bar for Renewal of passport.

As per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967 when the

passport authority refuses to grant passport, the Court while

exercising its discretion has to look at the facts and circumstances

of each case. Mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a reason

to refuse to grant passport.

16. In Akhilesh v. State of Kerala and Others

6

it was held that the Court

where the case is presently pending has to decide whether the applicant is

entitled to get a passport as well as the period for which he is entitled to hold

the passport and the Court has also to keep in mind the fact that pendency of

a criminal case shall not stand in the way or cause hindrance to decide the

future of an applicant.

17. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in a similar occasion,

this Court in WRIT PETITION Nos. 1392 & 2896 of 2023 & 38869 of 2022 has

observed that:

105. In the result, the Court passes the following order, disposing of all

the writ petitions in the following terms:

(a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent

passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on

compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the

pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is

rejected.

(b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the

cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the

6

(2021 (2) KHC 752)

12

Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order

from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial.

(c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid,

the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere

pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of

other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993.

(d) If the petitioner approaches the concerned Court where the criminal

case is pending trial, for an order, seeking No Objection Certificate /

Permission to depart from India or to continue to his departing from

India, with respect to those petitioners, who already departed under the

passport, the renewal of which is requested, their applications would be

considered by the concerned Court, as per law, taking into account the

relevant RNT, J WP Nos.1392 of 2023 & 2 ors. 52 facts and

circumstances of their respective cases and appropriate orders shall be

passed according to law.

(e) The judgment in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra)

by the Hon'ble Apex Court, shall be considered in the correct

perspective, as discussed in this judgment, by the concerned Court.

(f) If there is an additional ground, under any other clause of Section 6

(2), i.e., other than clause (f), the same shall be considered independent

of the directions issued in these writ petitions.

(g) The petitioner of W.P.No.2896 of 2023 is granted liberty to approach

the Court concerned afresh.

18. He has also placed on record that the Government of India in Office

Memorandum No.VI/401/1/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019, in which it is clarified

that as mere filing of F.I.Rs and the cases under investigation do not come

under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967.

19. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, this Court has taken

note of the arguments and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and this Court. It is no more res integra that renewal of passport under Section

13

6(2) (f) of the Act cannot be denied unless the cognizance is taken by the

competent criminal Court for the offences registered.

20. In the present case, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

it is a fact that in respect of Crime No.69 of 2026 on the file of Railway Koduru

Urban Police Station, Tirupathi, still there is no cognizance taken by the

learned Magistrate having competent jurisdiction. With regard to other case,

C.C.No.243 of 2024, admittedly summons were not served on accused No.2,

i.e., the petitioner herein. Conversely, it cannot be also taken that the accused

No.2 is exonerated/ discharged from the case. During pendency of the

proceedings, in C.C.No.243 of 2024, the competent Court has the jurisdiction

to take cognizance. Be that as it may, presently, the petitioner was not issued

summons and the ingredients of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act are not

attracted and more so, there is no justification on the part of the respondents

in not passing orders on the reply submitted by the petitioner, dated

29.04.2026, which certainly causes prejudice to the petitioner in view of law of

the land. It is also an established principle that Right to Travel is embedded as

a Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from infringing the

very fundamental right.

21. In nutshell, there is no express order passed denying or rejecting the

passport for renewal made by the petitioner vide application

No.VJFO76628698126 and in view of that matter, respondents are directed to

forthwith pass orders for renewing the passport of the petitioner made through

14

application No.VJFO76628698126, by considering the purport of Section

6(2)(f) of the Act in consonance with Hon'ble Apex Court rulings, which are no

more a legal conundrum. This exercise should be completed within a period of

two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

22. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________

JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Dated 21.05.2026

KA/KBN

15

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION NO: 14514/2026

Dated 21.05.2026

KA/KBN