Allowed

Katta Vishwanatham, v. Union of India

Telangana HC3 Aug 2023WP/20595/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a writ petition challenging the refusal of a passport due to pending criminal cases. The Court held that pendency of criminal proceedings is not a statutory bar under the Passports Act and directed the Passport Officer to consider the application after obtaining an undertaking from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Respondent No. 2 directed to consider the passport application within one week, issue the passport upon obtaining a necessary undertaking from the petitioner, without order as t

Katta Vishwanatham, Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20595 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Katta Vishwanatham, S/o. Narasaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Retd SCCL Employees, R/o. H No.1 3-34 13, Thilak Nagar, Godavarikhani, MDL Ramagundem, Peddapalli District, Telangana.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND'1. Union of lndia, Rep. by its lr4rnistry of Foreign Affairs Shastry Bhavan, Dr. Raiendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 1 10 001 .

¶12

The Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office, D.No. 8-2-215 to 219 Kummarguda, Secunderabad - 500 003

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 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 Respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport by keeping the application vide File.No. HY706516065'1 323, Dated.3l .01 .2023 pending is illegal, arbitrary, against the settled preposition of law and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently, direct the Respondent No.2 to forthwith issue the passport to the petitioner by duly considering the application dt.31 .01.2023, vide file no. HY7065160651323 as well as the response Dtd.28.06.2023 to the Clarification Ref No. SCN/3'14732957123. Dtd 01 .O5.2023.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

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 No.2 to consider and dispose the application for issuance of thepassportdt.3l .01.2023, videfileno. HY7065160651323,^{pendingdisposal} of the Writ petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶19

(Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HO],I'I3LE MRS JUSTICE SUREPAI.LI^N,[{D,q

¶22

w.p. Nq.2O595af 2023

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Hearct Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, thel^learned counsel app:aring for the^petitioners and ttre^learned Counsel Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, the Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behall' ol'^the respondents,

¶25

PERUSED T} E RECORD.

¶26

2. The prlyer as sought for by the^petitionr:r in the present wril petition reads as under:

¶27

"to pas ,; an order or orders one in the ni t.tre of WRIT O' MANDAI'1US, declat'ing the erction t:,f^1:he respond( nl No.2 in not issuing the^passl)c)rt by l:ile keeping the application^,ride No.HY'20:i5 160651323, dated 31.01.20i13^pe l(ling^is illegal ar^rJ arbitrary, against the settled l)repotitior of law and rl:;o violative of Articles 14,19 and 2l cf^':he Constitu orr of Tndia and corrsequentl^y, clirel:t :he Respond,rrt No.2 to forthwith issue tho^pasr;[rort to the peti .ic'ner by duly considering the appl cation dated 31.01.2023, vide file \0.

¶28

¶29

No.HY7065160651323 as well as the response dated 28.06.2023 to the Clarification Ref . No. SCN/3 t47 32959 / 23, dated O 1.05.2023."

¶30

Th titioner, ilr brier as vrs :

¶31

a) The^petitioner is a retired employee in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited and Vice President in the Workers Union of Indian Federation of Trade Union and had retired from services in the year 2018. The International Coordination Group (ICG), International Miners Co-ordination (IMC), Germany has been invited the petitioner for the International Miners Conference from 31.08.2023 to 03.09.2023 in Thuringia, Germany, as such the petitioner applied for the passport on 13.01.2023.

¶32

b) The petitioner has applied for issuance of new^passport vide File No.HY7065160651323, dated 31.01.2023 and appointment for verification of documents was scheduled on 13.03.2023 and that the^petitioner attended for interview and verification, but the respondent authority, after verification, kept the petitioner's application on Hold and that the Status Tracker online is showing as "Police Verification Report is Not clear and application is under Review at Regional Passport

¶33

¶34

¶35

Officer, tha:^.' crimes are registered in the n,airr: of the petitioner viCe Cr.No.105l2017, under Sectio,ns 14:, 34 1,186, read with 1.+9 II)C oF Godavarikhani. The car;e is^)l'vile CC No.50B/2012 rt Hon'ble IFCM Godavarikhan Crinr€, N,t.B of 2018 unrJer 5 3(:tions 143, 341, 1BB read vuith 141 IPC of Godavarikhani I Town P.S. The case is PT vide CC NO..l07 at Hon'ble lFClv Court Godavarikhani and :he :;a me was subsequently ,harge sheeted. The petitioner contr:nd; that the said two .rimes are purely civil in nature an<i loos not even constitut ,, ir criminal offence.

¶36

c) The resl ro rdents have informed throug h a -€,tte^- vide Ref.No.SCN/3 4732957/23. dated 01.05.2023 th;rt criminal cases are per rjing against the petitioner anrl ask:r. to give explanation r, rgarding the circumstances under w hich the petitioner had s,tppressed the material infornratic,r /vltt)in 30 days and the:aid letter reached the petitione- on t9 06.2023 and the petil ioner has given a letter of Clarif ic,:tion on 28.06.20.23 wrereunder petitioner explained that therr: was mis-communic ation between the Mee Seva cotlsultent arrd the petitioner anc that the said Mee Seva con:jultart had not informed the petitioner regarding the opt on cf p€nding

¶37

l,r

¶38

¶39

Criminal^{Casesin the applicatlonform and that the saidlapse} was not^{intentional,but, however, the expianationof the} petitioner had not^{been consiclered and the petitioner had not} been issued^{passport till as on date'Hence, this writ petition'}

¶40

Learned^{counselfor the petitioner contendsthat there} are two^{criminal cases pending againstthe petitioner and the} petitioner had^{submitted applicationon 31'01'2023 for} issuance^{of passport by paying requisitefee' but however' the} same was^{keptpending since January,2O23 on the ground of} pendency of criminal^{cases' This Court opines that on the} ground of^{pendencyof the criminal proceedings'respondent} No.2cannotdenyforissuanceofpassporttothepetitioneras there is no^{provision in the Passports Act or Ru les/Regulations} that^{passport cannotbe grantedon the ground of pendency of} criminal^cases.

¶41

The Apex^{Court in the judgment dated 27'O9'2O2L} reported in^{2O2O Crl' L'J (SC) 572 in Vangala Kasturi} Bureau of^{Investigation} Rangacharyulu^vCentral observed^{as under:}

T a I n du

eriod of 5 ear m tel oc €djgL.th,l date of ir.B ti nf an en involvinrr m ral tur r[!:udq an4 sentence for imor_l9-qrye-nt for nof les s than two vears,"

¶48

A bare pr:rusal of the above referred ju,Cgrrrent clearly indict rtr:s that even pendency r>f a crirninal appeal is no: a bar to renew the passport As per Section 6(2) rf the passport Ac|l967, certain qrorrnds are andicate( , under which the issue/renerva I of passport can be denied to a citizen. Admifl:e,dty, as borne on reco"d petitioner,s case does not fail in any of the grounds :rs indicated under Section 6(2 t of the Passports Act, 1967.

¶49

Paragraph No.3 of the Office Memorandurn, d:rted 10.1O.2019, is;ued by the Joint Secretary (pSp) 8r Chief passport Offi< r:rs, psp Division, Ministry of llxternal Affairs, Goverr ment of India, reads as follows:

¶50

"3. It m,ry be noted that applicants mily be refused passports on y on grounds mentioned under Sefiic,n €;(2) of the l,assp)rts Act, 1967. Section 6(2)(f) of the Act states that t te passport authority shall refuse to il;sue a passport. or tr avel docurnent to an applicant on th€ 1:round that proceedilgs in respect of an offence allegecl t(: have

¶51

¶52

been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 was introduced to give relief to such applicants against whom criminal proceedings are pending before any Court of law in India out who may need to travel abroad for some urgent business. With an undertaking under GSR 570(E) and an order from the Court, an applicant could be issued a short validity passport of one year validity or for the period specified by the Court."

¶53

B. The above extracted paragraph No.3 indicates that even in the event of^pendency of criminal^proceedings, on taking an undertaking and from an order of the Court, the applicant can be issued short validity^passport of one^year validity or for the period specified by the Court.

¶54

Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vangala^Kastura Rangacharyulu v Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2O2O Cr.L.J (SC) 572^(referred to^and extracted above) and Paragraph 3 of the^Office Memorandum, dated 10.10.2019, issued by^{the Joint} Secretary(PSP & Chief Passport Officer,^{PSP Davision,} Ministry of External Affairs Government of India, the

¶55

-!I

¶56

¶57

writ petition s disposed of,

¶58

10, The resrondent No.2 is directed to consi Cer the application of the petitioner bearing No.HY70651€ r0,551323, dated 31.O1.2023, ,ri,le file No.HYD70651 323, within a period of one week fr,ont the date of rece rpt of the copy of the order an<l issue passport to l lhe petitioner duly considering t:he ,,riew taken by the Apex Court in the Judgment regrorted in 2O2O Cr.L.J (SC) St2 in -VANGALA |C\SI.URI RANGACHARY I.,I.U VS. CENTRAL BUREIIT] OF INVESTIGATII)N" 6n6 also duly considering ttte terms of the office Irtemorandum dated lO.lO.2019 stip,ulated at para 3 of the said Memorandum, after obt:aining necessary unr lertaking from the petitioner. Houvever, there shall be ro order as to costs.

¶59

Miscellane rr s petitions, if any, pending shall a s,:) sl.and

¶60

closed

¶61

SD/. K.SRI:ERAMA MURTY ASSISTI\NT FIEGISTRAR

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

!>. SEC TION OFFICER

¶64

To, '1 . The Ministry of Fr reign Affairs Shastry Bhavan, Union of Ind a Dr. Raiendra Prasad Road Ne^,v )elhi 1 10 001.

¶65

The Regional F'ar sr,ort Officer, Passport Office, D.No.^8-2-:2 l5 to,l19 Kummarguda. ise:)underabad^- 500 003

¶66

One CC to llRl P^:I/.BHAKAR CHIKKUDU, Advocate []PUCI 4 One CC to llRl G \t)l PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy SOLICITOR^(;E NERAL^OF rNDrA) [OPTJC] 5. I wo CD Coorer; BN LSa-t'

]C TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:03108'2023

ORDER

WP.No.20595 of 2023

,t;ii tt' :; r4 rr.
1 6(v
0 Alltt 2llzl
',//
I

¶74

DISPOSING^()|[: THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC S;TS

¶75

../
'1\ \ 'iv 'l

Katta Vishwanatham, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katta Vishwanatham, v. 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

Lords Organization Vs Sri.Rajesh Bhushan IAS

Sanna Mahadev Vs The State of Telangana

G.T. Narayana Coaching Center Vs The State of Telangana

Ms Himaja Guduru Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Majid Vs Union of India

Sri.a.Rajender Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation