Tata Neelima Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Tata Neelima Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; the petitioner is expressly left free to make a fresh passport application to the authorities concerned; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not processing the minor's passport application (ARN 24-1006880135; File No. VJ2066603613324) and orally insisting on production of Divorce/Judicial Separation Decrees is illegal and arbitrary. +2 more

Court's answer

The passport application made on 31.05.2024 without the father's consent (with Annexure C furnished) was kept on hold for want of certain documents; a closure alert dated 30.07.2024 drew no response, the file was closed, and closure was intimated vide letter FCL/1020562847/25 dated 03.10.2025.

Ratio / Principle

Knowing the application had been closed, the petitioner's filing of the writ petition instead of a fresh application amounts to abuse of process of law; the petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs, however, taking a lenient view, the Court was inclined to dispose of the writ petition.

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is disposed of; this order does not preclude the petitioner from making a fresh application to the authorities concerned, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed of. The petitioner, mother of minor Kum. Sai Sanvee Eddula, sought a mandamus directing the respondents to process and issue the child's passport (Application Reference No. ARN 24-1006880135; File No. VJ2066603613324) on the strength of her Annexure C (Single parent consent) declaration, without insistence on divorce/judicial separation decrees or the father's consent. The Court recorded that the application was made on 31.05.2024 without the father's consent, that the authorities sought further documents and kept the application on hold for non-submission, and that a closure alert dated 30.07.2024 having drawn no response, the file was closed and closure intimated vide letter FCL/1020562847/25 dated 03.10.2025. Holding that pursuit of the writ petition despite knowledge of the closure was 'nothing but abuse of process of law', the Court, taking a lenient view rather than imposing exemplary costs, disposed of the writ petition, expressly leaving the petitioner free to lodge a fresh application; no order as to costs. The substantive question whether a passport may be issued on Annexure C declarations alone, without consent orders or separation decrees, was not adjudicated.

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2026 Date of uploading :

APHC010306082026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3332]

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 16206/2026

Between:

TATA NEELIMA, W/O EDDULA ASHOK KUMAR, RIO EDEPALLI, DNO 15/62, MACHILIPATNAM

...PETITIONER

AND

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. PIN.110001

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA PIN 520002

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or Direction to A) To declare the action of the Respondents in failing to process and issue the passport of the minor child SAI SANVEE EDDULA vide Application Reference No. ARN 24-1006880135, (File No. VJ2066603613324) and orally insisting on production of Divorce/Judicial Separation Decrees as highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India B) To consequently direct the

2

Respondents to immediately process and issue the passport to the minor daughter of the petitioner, namely SAI SANVEE EDDULA, based on the declarations submitted under Annexure C without insisting on any further consent, orders, or separation decrees from her estranged father And to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 Respondent authorities to provisionally process the application under ARN 24-1006880135 (File No. VJ2066603613324) and issue the passport to the minor child Sai Sanvee Eddula pending final disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.HARI KRISHNA TATA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.G SAI NARAYANA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT.

The Court made the following:

3

ORDER:

To declare the action of the respondents in not processing the application vide Reference No.ARN 24-1006880135 (File No.VJ2066603613324) and issuing the passport of the minor child Sai Sanvee Eddula and orally insisting on production of Divorce/Judicial Separation Decrees, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard Sri Tata Hari Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition contended that the petitioner is the mother of the minor child by name Kum.Sai Sanvee Eddula and an application vide Reference No.ARN 24-1006880135 (File No.VJ2066603613324) has been made before the respondent officials for issuance of passport for the minor child. He further submitted that despite making such an application as per rules in vogue, the authorities are not issuing passport and insisting the petitioner to produce the final divorce decree or an explicit Court mandate. He further contended that

though the petitioner has submitted all required documents, the authorities kept the application pending on untenable grounds. He further

4

submitted that it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the authorities concerned to pass orders on the petitioner’s application in a time bound manner, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel on written instructions of the Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, dated 06.07.2026 submitted that the application was kept on hold for want of certain documents. He further submitted that as per the procedure, if the applicant failed to submit any documents within a period of 90 days, the application would automatically be closed. In fact, the closure alert was also given to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2024, however, as the petitioner has not given any response, the file was closed and the same was intimated to the applicant (petitioner) vide letter dated 03.10.2025. He further submitted that the authorities have no right to consider the closed application, as such, the petitioner, instead of making fresh application, unnecessarily knocked the doors of this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner made an application for issuance of passport for her minor daughter vide Reference No.ARN 24-

5

1006880135 (File No.VJ2066603613324) on 31.05.2024. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the petitioner and her husband. The written instructions of the Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, dated 06.07.2026. It further indicates that the application has been made without the father’s consent and the petitioner furnished Annexure C (Single parent consent) by mentioning that Father is separated and no Court case is pending before the Court regarding custody of the child. In that regard, the authorities sought certain other documents which are required for processing the application and due to non submission of the same, the authorities have kept the petitioner’s application on hold.

A file closure alert dated 30.07.2024 has also been sent to the petitioner. However, as no response has been received from the petitioner, the said file has been closed and the same was intimated to the petitioner vide letter FCL/1020562847/25 dated 03.10.2025. Even according to the documents filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition would also indicate that the letter of the Regional Passport Officer dated 30.07.2024 has been sent to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to schedule an appointment and report at PSK Vijayawada along with the desired documents failing which the application file would close permanently and the fee would also be forfeited.

6

No reasons are coming forward as to why the petitioner has not responded to the said intimation letter. Further, knowing that the application has been closed, the petitioner instead of making fresh application, filed writ petition which in the firm opinion of this Court, is nothing but abuse of process of law. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs, however, taking lenient view, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of . However, this order

does not preclude the petitioner from making fresh application to the authorities concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date: 07^th July, 2026 RKS

Whether the order is:

Speaking	Reasoned
Reportable	Non-reportable