1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare action of 2nd respondent in cancelling the passport bearing No.S1965546, by putting stamp on the passport
on the ground that crime vide Cr.No.538 of 2021 of Saifabad Police Station relating to C.C.No.13781 of 2021 and Cr.No.1071 of 2017 of
Hayathnagar Police Station relating to C.C.No.392 of 2018 as illegal and consequently to direct 2nd respondent to re-issue the passport to the
petitioner by making correction of name of petitioner’s wife as ‘Naikoti Vaishnavi’ instead of ‘Naikoti Vyshnavi’ in the passport
in pursuance of application dated 02.06.2022 submitted by the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri D.Y.N.L.N.Charyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kommineni Manideepika, learned standing counsel for Central
Government appearing for respondents. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein is holder of passport bearing No. S1965546 and the same is valid upto 26.06.2028. The petitioner herein has submitted
an application vide File No.HY1074269822322, dated 02.06.2022 before 2nd respondent with a request to correct the name of his wife in the
said passport and re-issue the passport. The petitioner received information from 2nd respondent vide letter dated 17.10.2022 that he is an
accused in Cr.No.538 of 2021 of Saifabad Police Station for the offences under Sections 147,149,427 and 448 of IPC and Section 3 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, relating to C.C.No.13781 of 2021 and in Cr.No.1071 of Hayathnagar Police Station for the
offences under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC relating to C.C.No.392 of 2018 and cancelled the said passport.
4. As stated above, the petitioner herein is an accused in the aforesaid cases and same are pending. However, as per the terms of gazette
Notification GSR No.570-E, dated 25.08.1993, on the ground of pendency of the proceedings in the aforesaid cases, 2nd respondent cannot
deny renewal of passport of the petitioner. However, as per the said gazette notification, if the petitioner wants to travel abroad, he has to obtain
permission from the court concerned where the cases are pending.
5. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 had
an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, pendency of criminal cases and 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. Section 6.2 (f) of the Act, relates to a situation, where the applicant is facing
trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections - 420, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B
of the IPC and also Section - 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Against which, an appeal was filed and
the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way
of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that passport authority cannot refuse
renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to renew the
passport of the applicant without raising objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) Passport
Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner.
7. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions to the petitioner as well as 2nd respondent:-
i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit before the learned Junior Civil Judge Cum XXIV Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hayathnagar, where the case vide C.C.No.392 of 2018 is pending stating that he shall not leave India during pendency of the said
Cases without permission of the Court and that he shall co-operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said cases.
ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom;
iii) The petitioner herein shall submit an application along with certified copy of this order as well as the aforesaid undertaking before the Passport
Officer/Authority concerned for renewal of his passport;
iv) On filing such an application, the Passport Officer/Authority/2nd respondent shall consider the same afresh in the light of the observations made
by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules,1980 for renewal of his
passport in accordance with law, within three (03) weeks from the date of said application; and
v) The 2nd respondent also to carry out the correction of name of the petitioner’s wife in the passport as sought by him.
vi) On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original renewed passport before the trial Court in the above case.
vii) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek permission to travel abroad from the learned Junior Civil Judge Cum XXIV Additional
Metropolitan magistrate at Hayathnagar, where the case vide C.C.No.392 of 2018.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
