Disposed

Ajay Varma Thakur, v. The Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024WP/19212/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in a writ petition regarding delay in passport re-issuance. The petitioner cited a stay on criminal proceedings, while the state argued that a representation under the Passport Act was required. The court disposed of the main petition without deciding the substantive issue, directing the petitioner to submit an explanation to the passport authority within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

No grant of relief; respondent directed to receive petitioner's explanation and pass appropriate orders.

Ajay Varma Thakur, Vs The Union… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 19212 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Ajay Varma Thakur, S/o. Varma Singh Thakur, Aged^{about52years,} OccBusiness, R/o. H.No. 76-9-8, Rajeswara Rao Mill Road, Bhavanipuram, NTR District, A.P.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{MinistryofExternal} Affairs, South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New^Delhi.

¶11

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport^{Office,GJ3M+9M,} Venkateswara Theatre Complex, M.G. Road, 0pp. Radio^Station, Vijayawada, 520610, A.P.

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Andhra^Pradesh.

¶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 pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more^particularly one^inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of 2nd respondent in reissuing the Passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application No. VJ2075114715123, dated 27-022023, as being arbitrary, illegal and

¶15

violative of principles of natural justice and against^{theArticles14and21} of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to re issue the passport to the petitioner pursuant to his Application No. VJ2075114715123, dated 27-02- 2023.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

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 2"^ respondent to consider the petitioners Passport Application No. VJ2075114715123, dated 27-02-2023 and re-issue passport to the petitioner, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. PANDAMANENI SRINIVASA RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO,^DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

■»a

APHC010375832024

HjiiH

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

¶28

[3329]

¶29

TUESDAY .THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 19212/2024

Between:

Ajay Varma Thakur,

...PETITIONER

AND

The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.PANDAMANENI SRINIVASA RAO

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT

¶42

2.GP FOR HOME

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

ORDER:-

¶45

This writ petition is filed claiming the following^relief;

¶46

“...to issue a Writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the^inactionof Respondent in reissuing the Passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application No.VJ2075114715123, dated 27.02.2023, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative^ofprinciples of natural justice and against the Articles 14 and²¹ of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to re-issue the passport to the petitioner pursuant^tohis Application No. V32073114713123, dated 27.02.2023 and pass such other order or orders... ’’

¶47

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein submitted an application vide application No.VJ2075114715123, dated 27.02.2023 to Respondent No.2 for reissuance of passport. But, the Respondents neither considered the application of the petitioner nor reissued the passport as requested by the petitioner.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Respondent No.2 issued Show Cause Notice vide Letter Ref.No.SCN/314473123/23, dated 20.03.2023, wherein the reissuance of passport to the petitioner was denied on the ground that an adverse Police verification report was receivedⁱⁿ which it is stated that criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the same is at the stage of trial vide C.C.No.3145 of 2023 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 r/w 149 of IPC.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that challenging the criminal proceedings, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Petition vide Crl.P.No.5498 of 2023 on the file of Hon’ble High Court^of Andhra^Pradeshat Amaravati, wherein, on 01.08.2023, this Court was pleased to pass an interim stay of all further proceedings. In view of the Stay of further proceedings granted by this Court, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be proceeded further. As such, the petitioner is entitled for reissuance of the passport. Hence, the writ petition.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted the written instructions issued by the Respondents, wherein it is stated that the petitioner herein was issued show^cause notice dated 20.03.2023 seeking clarification by Respondent No.2. But, so far the petitioner neither submitted any explanation nor filed any representation before Respondent No.2.

¶56

Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further submits that in view of the criminal case where the charge sheet had already filed and numbered vide C.C.No.3145 of 2023 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, the petitioner^{shallobtainpermission} under clause(f) of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act,^1967. Without filing such petition before the Court below, the petitioner cannot^{begranted/reissuedthe} passport.

¶57

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned^{counselforthe} petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents^andonperusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of^{theconsideredviewthatthe} present writ petition can be disposed of, directing^{thepetitionerhereinto} submit a suitable explanation along with all other^documents for the Show Cause Notice issued by Respondent No.2 vide Letter Ref. No.SCN/ 314473123/23, dated 20.03.2023, within a period of^{threeweeksfromtoday.} Upon receipt of such explanation from the petitioner.^{RespondentNo.2} is directed to pass appropriate orders, after considering^{theexplanationofthe} petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. /

¶58

¶59

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be

¶60

no order as to costs.

¶61

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ

¶62

petition shall stand closed.

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT registrar

¶65

To,

¶66

SECTIOfToFFICER

¶67

The Principal Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of^{ExternalAffairs,} South Block, Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi.

¶68

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, GJ3Mplus9M Venkateswara Theatre Complex, M.G. Road, 0pp. Radio^Station, Vijayawada, 520610, A.P.

¶69

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh.

¶70

One CC to Sri. Pandamaneni Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

One CC to Sri. Thenepalli Niranjan, SC for central. Govt [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT],

¶72

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.19212of 2024

4^ , ^
5 2 7 SEP 20?'« ^
^ , Current Section

¶79

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Ajay Varma Thakur, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Varma Thakur, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gudiseva Nagendram Vs Sri. Sasi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S.

Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Vs The Secretary

Kota Jayapal, S/o Joseph, Vs Idbi Bank Limited, rep. by its

Guntur District Wine Merchants Welfare Association Vs the State of Ap

K Subramanyam Reddy Vs Ap Southern Power Distribution Company Apspdcl

G Rami Reddy Vs Sri Shashibhushan Kumar