Mr. Kumar Pujar Doddanaik Vs Regional Passport Office Bengaluru

MR. KUMAR PUJAR DODDANAIK, SON OF SRI. DODDANAIK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.1221/A, 2^ND A CROSS, 19^TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR, 2^ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.KIRAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, BENGALURU, REP. BY THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 8^TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT.SWAMINI G.MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASHING THE LETTER DATED 02.07.2026 BEARING REF NO. OBJ/1055711276/26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:35660 WP No. 20845 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

1. Smt.Swamini Mohanambal, learned counsel accepts

¶22

notice for the respondent.

¶23

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

“WHEREFORE, It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to:

¶25

a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order in the nature of Writ quashing the Letter dated 02.07.2026 bearing Ref No.OBJ/1055711276/26 issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner at Annexure A;

¶26

b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order in the nature of Writ directing the Respondent to consider the Online Passport Application Receipt bearing A RN NO.B26-1056425366 for the passport renewal by the petitioner and renew the passport of the petitioner at Annexure D.

¶27

c. Grant other such reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and direct the respondent to pay the costs and expenses of this writ petition to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35660 WP No. 20845 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

3. The petitioner being a permanent resident of J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, is working as an Executive Engineer in the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation. The petitioner having made an application for renewal of his passport, an Endorsement at Annexure-A dated 02.07.2026 came to be issued stating that the petitioner had not submitted a Court Judgment/Decision allowing the petitioner to travel abroad. There is a proceeding pending in Crime No.9/2017 initiated by the ACB, Bangalore City Police Station.

¶31

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the petitioner were to travel, he would obtain the said permission from the concerned Court in seizure of Crime No.9/2017 and only thereafter travel.

¶32

5. In view of the categorical undertaking of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the right to travel being a fundamental right under

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35660 WP No. 20845 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Article 21 of the Constitution of India is recognized and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India reported in (2025 INSC 1476), the respondentPassport Authority cannot deny renewal of the passport to the petitioner. Albeit , the renewal can always be on a short validity basis, the apprehension of the respondent being addressed by the petitioner obtaining such permission from the concerned Court seized of the criminal proceeding before travelling abroad.

¶36

6. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the following

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶39

(ii) A certiorari is issued, the letter dated 02.07.2026 bearing Ref.No.OBJ/1055711276/26 issued by the respondent at Annexure-A is quashed.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:35660 WP No. 20845 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

(iii) A mandamus is issued directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and grant renewal of the passport of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶44

(iv) It is made clear that the petitioner shall be permitted to travel only after obtaining the permission from the concerned Court in seizure of the criminal proceedings.

¶45

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

PB

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Mr. Kumar Pujar Doddanaik v. Regional Passport Office Bengaluru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kumar Pujar Doddanaik v. Regional Passport Office Bengaluru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseem Unnisa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Cafelicious Vs Union of India

Sri. Narayana Reddy G N Vs the State of Karnataka

Beefathumma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T.R. Venkatesh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Bojja Bala Gurramma Vs the State of Karnataka