Disposed

Vallivedu Sreenivasulu Reddy v. the Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC6 May 2024WP/9323/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order addressed a writ petition challenging the refusal to renew a passport due to a pending criminal case in which the petitioner was the second accused. Relying on a Telangana High Court precedent, the court directed the passport authority to consider the application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to record represent and consider petitioner passport renewal application within 4 weeks without reference to the pending criminal case.

Vallivedu Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

t,
■

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 9323 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vallivedu Sreenivasulu Reddy, S/o.Late V. Narasimha Reddy, Age-67 years, R/o.21/39-2, SKD Colony, Adoni, Kurnool District^-518301. ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi^-110001.

¶12

The Regional Passport Officer, Near P.F. Office Beside, Rythu Bazar, Marripatam, VUDA Layout, NAD Post, NH-5, Main Road,

¶13

Visakhapatnam.

¶14

The Station House Officer, ISVI Police Station.^{KurnoolDistrict.} (R3 is impleaded in Writ Petition and affidavit as per the Court Order dated 07.05.2024 vide orders passed in lA No.2 of 2024)

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2'^'^ respondent in not renewing the Passport of the Petitioner vide Passport bearing NO.L2784407 illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2"^^ respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner vide application File NO.VJ3075500187523.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

.Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated ini the "affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider^{therepresentationof} the petitioner, dt.31.07.2023 for renewal of his Passport,^{withoutreference} to the Crime No.121/2020, of ISVI Police Station, Adoni(CC^No.181/2020 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni) pending disposal of the above writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SITA RAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: M/s. DIVYA DATLA{CENTRAL

¶20

GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3;GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

[3233]

¶23

APHC010182182024

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶25

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 9323/2024

¶30

Between:

¶31

Vallivedu Sreenivasulu Reddy

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

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

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.KSITA RAM

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1.DIVYA DATLA(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2.DIVYA DATLA(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the^{learnedCentral} Government Counsel for the respondents.

¶42

This writ petition is filed questioning the action^{ofthe2"'^respondentin} not renewing the Passport bearing No. L2784407 vide^application File No. VJ3075500187523.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having passport bearing No. L2784407 which expired on 26.06.2023. Even before the expiry, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same. The petitioner nd was asked to attend the interview before the office of the 2 respondent for renewal on 22.08.2023. Accordingly, the petitioner attended and he was informed that the passport cannot be renewed since there is a Criminal Case in CC.No.181/2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Adoni arising out of Crime No. 121 of 2020 of ISVI Police Station, Adoni nd against the petitioner. Pursuant to the letter of the 2 respondent reference No. SCN/315250745/23 dated 12.07.2023 the petitioner appeared before the 2 respondent by submitting a letter dated 31.07.2023 also for their consideration seeking renewal of the passport bearing No. L2784407. But in view of the charge sheet in CC.No.181/2020 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, the said request is not considered. 4. On the other hand, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that Initially when the petitioner sought for renewal of the passport, he did not bring it to the notice of the 2"" respondent about the pendency of the above said criminal case. In view of the same, his application for renewal of the passport cannot be considered. However, he appeared before the 2"'' respondent on 31.07.2023 pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the 2 nd respondent dated 12.07.2023. He also attended for the interview on 22.08.2023.

¶44

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the above said criminal case referred by the respondent authorities is with respect to the offence arising out of Section 304 A of IPC wherein Accused No.1 is the I driver of the Vehicle and the petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle hence shown as Accused No.2 in the said case. Even in the charge sheet, the only allegation made against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 is that they have allowed the Driver (Accused No.1) to drive the Tractor and Trailer without license except that there is no other allegation having any kind of involvement of the petitioner in the above said accident case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to the decision of the Telangana High Court passed in W.P.No.32906 of 2023 dated 05.12.2023 wherein the 2'^^ respondent therein was directed to consider the application of the petitioner therein for renewal of the passport within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of the copy of that order without reference to the proceedings pending therein in CC.No.391 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. 7. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and in view of the above said direction of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered herein as the petitioner is not the Accused No.1 in the above said accident case. The 2^^^^ respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for renewal of passport as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶45

✓

¶46

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There^{shallbenoorderas} to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶48

SD/- N.NAGAMMA //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶49

SECTimOFl^ER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, Shastri Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶52

The Regional Passport Officer, Near P.F. Office Beside, Rythu Bazar Marripatam, VUDA Layout, NAD Post, NH-5, Main Road,

¶53

Visakhapatnam.

¶54

One CC to Sri K. Sita Ram, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

One CC to Sri Divya Datla(Central Government Counsel) [OPUO 5. Two CC’s to GP for Home, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 6. Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/05/2024

ORDER

WP.No.9323 of 2024

<br>

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Vallivedu Sreenivasulu Reddy v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vallivedu Sreenivasulu Reddy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanoosh and Economically Poor People Vs the Union of India

M/s. Psr Infrastructures Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Solomon Raju Vs Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh

Konjeti Prem Kumar, Vs The Government of India

D Venkateswara Raju Vs the State of Ap

Satya Prasad Lalam, Vs Union of India