Disposed

Venkata Ramana Rao Mannam v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Oct 2023WP/27105/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus for inaction on a passport renewal application. Finding no dispute over submitted documents and given the petitioner's consent, the Court directed the authorities to dispose of the application within two weeks instead of issuing a positive order on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Authority directed to dispose of the passport renewal application and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from receipt of the order.

Venkata Ramana Rao Mannam Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶5

I/O yra
so Wi

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27105 OF 2023

¶7

Between: Sri Venkata Ramana Rao Mannam, S/o M. Venkateshwar Rao (late). Aged 52 Yrs 2^^-5Milford Ct, Edison, New Jersey. USA - 08820. Aslo at Plot Kakuturivaripalem, Kondapi, Prakasham District Andhra Pradesh - 523274

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

•.’1^'®■ 5®P- ky Secretary (CPV), Ministry of External Affairs, South Block_Building, Njw Delhi - 110001

¶11

J vN.ioint S ecretaryJPcuicia.yjr S P)r; an ad uru, KbK Division, Min istiistry of External Affairs Room No. 21, Patiala House, Tilak Marg New Delhi -110001

¶12

Consulate General of India, 3 East 64th Street (Between Sth and Madison Avenues), New York, NY 10065, United States of America

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 »A/® direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus by holding the impugned in-action of the Respondents in not issuing the Passport vide Application No. ANB 23-2000176690 as violative of the The Passports Act 1967 and the Rules framed therein and further hoId the inaction as violative of the Legal and Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners under Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and be pleased to.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

in th 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 23Passport Application No. ANB

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. MANNAM VENKATA KRISHNA RAO

¶18

2 ' ®'’' HAR'NATH N, DEPUTY SOLICITOR UcNcKAL Or INDIA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : NONE APPEARED

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶22

Writ Petition No.27105 of 2023

¶23

ORDER: -

¶24

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶25

India, is filed seeking the following relief/s:

¶26

a to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus by holding the impugned , inaction of the Respondents in not issuing the Passport vide Application No.ANB 232000176690 as violative of the provisions of The Passports Act, 1967 and the Rules framed therein and further hold the inaction as violative of the Legal and Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners under Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution ofIndia and be pleased to pass...”

¶27

2. The short grievance of the petitioner herein is that in spite of submitting an application for issuance of renewal of passport. vide application No.ANB 23-2000176690, so far the authorities have not passed any orders on the petitioner’s application.

¶28

3. Heard Sri Krishna Rao Mannam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. T.Alekhya, learned Central Government counsel appearing for respondent Nos.l & 2.

¶29

Sri Krishna Rao Mannam, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, as the petitioner’s passport was expired on

■ •

RC,J WP_27105_2023

05.09.2023, the petitioner has applied for fresh passport, but so far he has not received any communication from the authorities in that regard. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶34

He further submitted that, the petitioner received an e- mail dated 26.06.2023 sent by respondent authorities duly seeking the current-status and. relevant documents of the pending Court Case. In reply to the said mail, the petitioner has submitted the copies of the documents required. The said mail correspondence is placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same.

¶35

He further contended that, the petitioner is now residing in U.S.A., until and unless he obtains a passport, he cannot visit India and pursue the Court case as well. In these circumstances, the passport is very much required, but the authorities have not passed any orders on the passport renewal application. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶36

5. On the other hand, Smt. T.Alekhya, learned Central Government counsel, submitted that instructions are required in the present case and sought time.

RC,J WP 27105 2023

1 I

6. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there is no dispute with regard to submission of application and pursuant to the said application. the authorities sought for certain documents. The petitioner is now restricting the relief to that of disposal of his representation. Hence, Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the authorities to consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with law with in a timeframe.

¶42

¶43

Perused the record.

¶44

It is not in dispute that there is C.C. No.4294 of 2019 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioner. The mail received from the passport authorities on 26.06.2023, shows that the authorities have sought certain information with regard to pending Court cases.

¶45

The e-mail dated 26.06.2023 shows that the petitioner . has submitted passport renewal application vide application No.ANB 23-2OOO176690 and further e-mail dated 18.07.2023 shows that, the authorities sought for certain information 'with regard to pending Court cases. Now the petitioner is not asking any positive direction, as such, as there is no purpose in

¶46

¶47

RC,J WP 27105 2023

¶48

keeping the Writ Petition pending, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ petition with the consent of both the parties, at the stage of admission, with the following direction:

¶49

<br>

¶50

The respondent authorities are hereby directed to dispose of the petitioner’s renewal application vide application No.ANB 23-2000176690 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ’ 'As a,sequel. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending "o'*4 VJ'ii ’ -iJ ■ -i . shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/- S. SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR^

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Secretary (CPV), Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, South Block Building, New Delhi - 110001 2. The Joint Secretary (PSP) and CPO, PSP Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No. 27, Patiala House, Tilak Marg New Delhi -110001 3. One CC to SRI. MANNAM VENKATA KRISHNA RAO Advocate [OPUCl 4. One GO to SRI HARINATH N, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [OPUC] 5. •Three CD Copies Madhu

■
S'

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/10/2023

ORDER

orAN -------
= 2 1 OCT 2123
. Current Section

¶61

WP.No.27105 of 2023

¶62

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Venkata Ramana Rao Mannam v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkata Ramana Rao Mannam v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev Yuvajana Sangham Vs The State of A.P.

Adi Narayana Transport Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tummala Lakshmana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thirumala Constructions Vs the State of Ap

M/ s. Yvr and Company, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Newlife Medical Services Vs the State of Ap