Disposed

S.Rahul Reddy v. Government of India

Telangana HC19 Mar 2010WP/5244/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Respondent's letter requiring him to apply for a duplicate Passport instead of returning the original misplaced Passport held by the High Commission in London. The Court allowed the petitioner to apply for a duplicate passport and directed the Respondent to return the original passport within four weeks of the application.

What did the court decide?

Permit petitioner to apply for duplicate passport; Respondent to consider application and return original passport within four weeks.

S.Rahul Reddy Vs Government of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.5244 of 2010

¶2

Dated 1 9 th March, 2010

Between:

S.Rahul Reddy

…Petitioner And

Government of India and another

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.P.Lakshmi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri N.V.Ramanujam, SC for Central Govt.

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

Order:

¶11

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in returning Passport No.E3292769, issued to the petitioner on 05-09-2002, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

The petitioner’s Passport was found misplaced when the same was in the custody of his agent in London. On the complaint given by the petitioner, the same was treated as missing. However, the Indian High Commission at London through its letter, dated 08-09-2009, sent the petitioner’s Passport to respondent No.2 with a request to return the same to the petitioner. Through letter, dated 29-12-2009, respondent No.2 required the petitioner to apply for a duplicate Passport. This letter is questioned in this Writ Petition.

¶13

According to the petitioner, when the Indian High Commission had sent the Passport to respondent No.2, there is no justification for the latter to insist on the petitioner to apply for a duplicate Passport instead of

¶14

returning the original Passport to him.

¶15

Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the loss of Passport of the petitioner was entered in the National Database (PISON) and that the same cannot be revived in view of the directions contained in Circular No.VI/401/1/1/2005, dated 03-04-2008, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. It is further averred that the said circular also envisages that the Passport Issuing Authorities need to make DRIL entry in PISON relating to loss/impounding/revocation of Passport and issue circular to all check posts and that Passport Issuing Authority shall invariably grant a duplicate Passport against lost Passport only after the DRIL entry relating to loss of Passport has been made.

¶16

The learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2 submitted that in view of the DRIL entry already made regarding the loss of petitioner’s Passport, the petitioner will not be in a position to use the original one without a duplicate Passport being issued.

¶17

Having regard to this stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client may be permitted to apply for duplicate Passport and respondent No.2 may be directed to issue a duplicate Passport, within a reasonable time, while returning the original Passport and the documents, if any received by

¶18

him from the Indian High Commission in London. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that respondent No.2 shall have no objection for this request.

¶19

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to apply for a duplicate Passport. Respondent No.2 shall consider the said application, if made, and return the original Passport along with the documents, if any received from the Indian High Commission at London, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6757 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

_____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J

¶22

Dated 19^th March, 2010 lur

S.Rahul Reddy v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rahul Reddy v. Government 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

Dr.Syed Jaweed Muneer Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Narayana Vs Northern Power Distribution company Limited, Warangal

Vittanala Rama Tulasi, D/o. Guttula Satyanarayana Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.M.S.V. Rama Leela Vs State Bank of India

Avatar Mehar Baba Charitable Trust, Vs The Circle Inspector of Police

B.Radhakrishna Murthy Vs Government of India., rep.by Ministry of Communications