(Prayer: 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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particularly the 2nd Respondent renewed the Petitioner's Pass Port vide Pass Port No.M1796691 for a Period of One Year i.e., 31/07/2025 to 30/07/2026 in connection with Renewal Pass Port Application as per the Orders of the Court i.e., V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tirupathi in CrlM.P.No.1286/2025 in C.C.No. 288/2024 dated 03/07/2025 instead of Renewal of Pass Port as per the prescribed renewal Period 5/10 years as per the Amended Pass Port Act, even though there is no specific period is fixed by the Court in Crl MP No.1286/2025 all are Illegal, Unlawful, Violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of Apex Court Rulings Violation of Article 14,19 of the Constitution of India , Consequently to direct the 2nd Respondent Pass Port Authority to Renew the Petitioner's Pass Port No. No.M1796691 for a Period of Ten Years as per the prescribed period as per the Amended Pass Port Act and to 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 to direct the 2nd Respondent Pass Port Authority to Renew the Petitioner's Pass Port No. No.M1796691 for a Period of Ten Years as per the Pass Port Rule 12(1) of Pass Port Rules and to pass)

1. This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:

                  “…to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents particularly, 2nd respondent renewed the petitioner’s Passport vide Passport No:M1796691 for a period of One year i.e. from 31.07.2025 to 30.07.2026 in connection with renewal of Passport application as per the Orders of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tirupati in Crl.M.P.No.1286 of 2025 in C.C.No.288 of 2024, dated 03.07.2025 instead of renewal of Passport as prescribed for 5/10 years as per the Amended Passport Act, even though there is no specific period was fixed by the Court in Crl.M.P.No.1286 of 2025, as illegal, unlawful, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Hon’ble Apex Court rulings, violation of 2nd respondent Passport Authority to renew the petitioner’s Passport No.M1796691 for a period of Ten years as per the prescribed period and as the Amended Passport Act 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 a businessman, used to travel abroad once or twice in a month for the purpose of his business and he obtained Passport bearing No.M1796691; that the said Passport was issued for a period of Ten (10) years and it was expired by 31.08.2024; that when the Writ Petitioner applied for renewal of Passport, the Passport Authority took an objection that Calendar Case No.288 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati has been pending; that the Writ Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.24110 of 2024 on the file of this Court seeking direction to renew the Passport and this Court disposed the said Writ Petition directing the Jurisdictional Court to pass appropriate orders on the application made by the Writ Petitioner.

                  (b) The Writ Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1286 of 2025 in C.C.No.288 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and it was allowed vide Order, dated 03.07.2025 directing the Passport Authority to renew the Passport of the Writ Petitioner; that subsequently, the Passport of the Writ Petitioner was renewed only for a period of One (01) year i.e., from 31.07.2025 to 30.07.2026. The renewal of Passport for One (01) year would not serve any purpose to the Writ Petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. During arguments, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the Writ Petition affidavit.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the offences alleged against the Writ Petitioner are under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „IPC‟) and, if the Passport of the Writ Petitioner is renewed for Ten (10) years, it would hamper the trial proceedings pending on the file of the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.3 to 5/Home reiterated the contention of learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and further contended that, if the passport of the Writ Petitioner is renewed, there is every likelihood of Writ Petitioner fleeing away from case trial.

6. Perused the entire material available on record.

7. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that Writ Petitioner, who is aged about 55 years, is arrayed as accused in Calendar Case No.288 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

8. It is the contention of learned counsel for Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner is a businessman and he travels abroad with regard to his business transactions. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that though there is no specific direction by the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati vide Order, dated 03.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1286 of 2025 in C.C.No.288 of 2024 to renew the Passport for a period of One (01) year, the Passport authority instead of renewing the Passport for Ten (10) years as per the Notification vide GSR No.570E, dated 25.08.1993, renewed the same only for a period of One (01) year.

9. It is the specific contention of Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner was falsely implicated as accused in the said case and that the Writ Petitioner is always available and would not flee away from justice. It is the specific case of the Writ Petitioner that pendency of criminal case against the Writ Petitioner should not lead to denial of passport facilities and further that Writ Petitioner‟s passport has to be renewed for a period of ten years.

10. Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 deals with application for obtaining a passport. Section 6 thereof deals with refusal of a passport. Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 contemplates that the passport issuing authority shall be bound to reject the application for issuance of a passport, if criminal proceedings are pending in any Court  in India. The Government of India issued a Notification vide GSR No.570E, dated 25.08.1993. GSR 570 (E) reads as follows:

                  “In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (Act 15 of 1967) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.GSR 298(E) dated the 14th April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, viz:- …”

                  A plain reading of the aforesaid Notification would go to show that if any citizen of India intends to travel abroad when a criminal case is pending as against him before a criminal court in India, he has to produce orders from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India exempting from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation(2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572.) held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.

12. Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India(1978 (1) SCC 248.) 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 portion of the paragraph No.5 is extracted as under:

                  “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 Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled 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.”

13. This Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and another(2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP).) at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6, observed as under:

                  “4. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction I was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport.

                  5. This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction and makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.

                  6. The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred to in the counter-affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court.

14. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and another(2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1238.), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has significantly clarified the interpretation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, holding that the pendency of criminal proceedings does not constitute an absolute bar to passport renewal when competent criminal courts have granted no-objection permissions.

15. A perusal of the above decision powerfully reaffirms that liberty is not a gift of the State but its first obligation, and that any restriction on Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be proportionate, reasonable, and anchored in law. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court set aside the decisions of both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had denied the appellant's request for passport renewal despite explicit permissions from the Delhi High Court and the NIA Court, Ranchi. By directing the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, to issue a regular ten-year passport while maintaining judicial oversight through travel restrictions. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court struck a careful balance between individual liberty and legitimate State concerns about absconding accused persons.

16. The Writ Petitioner is arrayed as accused in the aforesaid Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner would abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and present/appear before the Court as and when required without fail. Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said right is a Fundamental Right and a citizen of the country cannot be deprived of his personal liberty or of his right to travel abroad. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and duly considering the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court in various Judgments discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court exempts the petitioner from the operation of provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 in terms of the Notification in G.S.R.No.570(E) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 25.08.1993 and directs the authority concerned to consider the request of the petitioner for renewal of passport to him. The passport shall be renewed with a validity of ten (10) years, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.