Jayabharatha Reddy Kandula Vs the Union of India

JAYABHARATHA REDDY KANDULA, S/O.CHENCHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O.H.NO.28-10601A-2-3, ABDULLA GREED CITY, NOWMAN NAGAR, SAI BABA NAGAR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT

¶14

...PETITIONER

¶15

AND

¶16

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 110011

¶17

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT-520 002.

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I-TOWN POLICE STATION, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT 515001

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 in not issuing the Passport to the Petitioner in pursuant to Application vide File

¶21

RC,J W.P.No.17494 of 2026

¶22

2

¶23

NO.VJC076697135026, dated 17-04-2026 on the ground that the Petitioner is involved in Crime No.345/2023 as Accused No.3 for the offence U/sec.420, 498-A and Sec.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of 3rd Respondent Station even in spite of the name of the Petitioner has been deleted and no criminal case is pending against the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to issue the Passport to the Petitioner in pursuant to the Application vide File No.VJC076697135026, dated 17-04-2026 without reference of involvement of the Petitioner in Crime No.345/2023 on the file of the 3rd Respondent Police Station in the interest of justice

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶25

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

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR HOME

¶30

2.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2-

¶33

Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, in not issuing passport to the petitioner pursuant to his application vide File No.VJC07669135026, dated 17.04.2026

¶34

on the ground that the petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.345 of 2023 of

¶35

I-Town Police Station, Ananthapur for the offences under Sections 420, 498-A

¶36

of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶37

RC,J W.P.No.17494 of 2026

¶38

3

¶39

Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶40

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶41

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home by placing on record the written instructions of the Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu-I Town Police Station submitted that the petitioner was initially shown as accused No.3 in Crime No.345 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 498-A,

¶42

420, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 of the Ananthapuramu-I town Police Station and later he was deleted from array of the accused in the said crime and charge sheet was filed only against accused no.1 in the said crime.

¶43

Perused the material available on record and considered the

¶44

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶45

The material reveals that pursuant to the application made by the petitioner for issuance of passport, he was called upon to submit explanation and required documents to the enquiry officer about the adverse police verification report received by them regarding involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.345 of 2023 of Ananthapuramu-I Town Police Station. The written instructions of the Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I-Town Police Station placed on record by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home shows that the petitioner, initially, was shown as accused no.3 in the said

¶46

RC,J W.P.No.17494 of 2026

¶47

4

¶48

crime, however, after a fair, impartial and comprehensive investigation, he

¶49

was deleted from the array of the accused and charge sheet was filed only against accused no.1 in the above said crime. Therefore, as of now, the petitioner is not at all an accused in Crime No.345 of 2023. Hence, the

¶50

passport authorities cannot refuse issuance of passport on the ground of his involvement in the above said crime.

¶51

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the passport authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of passport as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 9^th July, 2026 RR Whether the order is :

¶54

  Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No   Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

Jayabharatha Reddy Kandula v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayabharatha Reddy Kandula v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Rakheeb Vs the Union of India

M/S. Brc Constructions Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Badana Venkata Ramanamma Vs the State of Ap

Chintalapati Ravindra Varma, Vs Idbi Bank Limited

I v R Krishnam Raju Vs the Idbi Bank Limited

Vegesna Venkata Satya Kanaka Durga Naga Soma Raju @ Airtel Somaraju @ Pandu Vs the Idbi Bank Limited