PAVAN KUMAR NAINENI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner approached this Court seeking the relief as under:

(2.) It is the specific case of the petitioner that in response to the notice, dtd. 12/12/2023 issued by Regional Passport Officer, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation, dtd. 3/1/2024 giving details about the Crime No.180 of 2020 registered against the petitioner. Further, vide Letter No. HY1075722230323 dtd. 6/10/2023 a reference is made to Crime No.180 of 2020 registered and pending against the petitioner and he was informed that his request of seeking passport made by him vide file No.HY1075722230323, dtd. 28/8/2023 would be considered upon the petitioner submitting acquittal order from the case or obtaining permission to travel abroad from the same Court. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide notice dtd. 12/12/2023 certain clarifications were called for from the petitioner in response to petitioner's request for issuance of passport facilities to the petitioner pertaining to Crime No.180 of 2020 registered against the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 448, 427, 143, 147 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on the file of P.S. Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.932 of 2021 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dtd. 3/1/2024 which has been acknowledged by the office of the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad. But, further, no action has been initiated on the said application of the petitioner, dtd. 28/8/2023 seeking re-issuance of the passport by entering the correct name of the wife of the petitioner i.e., Divya Rakshitha Naineni by incorporating the present address of the petitioner as under; "correct name of the wife of the petitioner i.e., Divya Rakshitha Naineni and the present address of the petitioner i.e., Sky Villa I-3202, Plot No.22 to 24, Sy.No.83/1, My Home Bhooja, Opp. T-Hub, Raidurg-500032, Cyberabad-Ranga Reddy, Telangana."

(3.) This court opines that pendency of criminal case against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny re-issuance of Passport to the petitioner and the right to personal liberty would include not only the right to travel abroad but also the right to possess a Passport.