Dismissed

Potula Mallesh v. Uniion of India

Telangana HC10 Aug 2023WP/21563/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the issuance of a letter seeking clarification and permission regarding his passport as illegal under Article 226. The Court held it was not a rejection but a request for information and directed both parties to exchange documents within a week.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to furnish clarifications sought in the letter dated 01.08.2023 within one week; directed Respondents to consider same and pass orders within one week thereafter.

Potula Mallesh Vs Uniion of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

|^32s21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21563 OF 2923

¶7

Between:

¶8

Potula Mallesh, S/o Pothula Sreeramulu Aged 42 years, Occ. Retd. Govt. Servant, Rl/o. H.No 99/1, 1st floor, Ramnagar, Bhudevi Temple, Picket, Secunderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Uniion of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi.

¶12

The Regional Passport Officer, Nagpur, CGO Complex, B-Block, D No. 8-2215 to 219, Saminary Hills, Nagpur Maharashka.

¶13

...RESPONOENTS

¶14

Petition under Arlicle 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 writ order or direction more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the responderlt No.2 in issuing letter dt. 11812023 seeking clarification and court permission for issuance of passport lo the petitioner as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural lustice and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to issue passport to the petitioner at the earliest.

¶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 Respondents to issue passport to the petitioner at the earliest pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶19

(Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

I )

¶22

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION N o.21563 0F²⁰²³

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitionerand} tearned counscl appearing on behalf^ofthe respond ents.

¶25

2, The petitioner approached the^{Court seeking the} prayer as follows:

¶26

"To issue writ order or direction more particularly Writ 01' Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2^{in issuing letter dt 1/B/2023} seeking clarificatlon and court^{permissionfor} issuance of^passport to the^{petitioner as illegal} arbitrary and violative of^{principles of natural justice} and set aside the sarne^and consequently^{direct the} Respondents to issue^passport to the^{petitioner at} the earliest and^pass such other^{or further orders as} this Hon'ble Court deerns fit and^proper in^the circumstances oF the case and^{pass suchother order} or orders may deem fit and^proper in^the circumstanceg of the case.^"

¶27

I I

¶28

A bare^perusal of the cotltents of the letter^dated 01.08.2023 issued by the 2nc resprrndent herein inclicates tttat the 2nd respondent only souqht for certain c;l"t rificatio n s

¶29

¶30

\ -"!q
' \ ':+)tF

¶31

required regarding the issuance of the passport facilities to the petitioner and it is certainly not a case where the petitioner's application seeking for issuance of passport has been rejected by the 2nd respondent authority.

¶32

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of both learned counsel on recorci, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to furnish the clarification as sought for by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 01.08.2023, within a period of one (01) week, from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the 2nd respondent herein is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, within a period of one (01) week thereafter, duly communicating the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶34

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/. N. CHANDRA^SEKHAR o ASSISTANT^REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Secretarv, Union of lndia, Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi i iiiE Hlii"i,jiFriii6't^{onii.i,t'ljgp,ir, cGo complex'B-Block,D No' 8-2-} 215 lo i19, Saminary^{Hills,Naqpur Maharashtra'}

¶40

s.^-ohi, cc i"'snr^{saEErlrvAsA"{qbRAVULAPAILAd.vocate[oP-UC]} ^- ;: #;66 i" Siii^{oAor paAVeeN xut',tnntDv. sollclroRGENERALoF} rNDrA) [oPUC]

¶41

1. Two CD^Copies BN. .,--

/;--'-:.2.:'

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 010812023

ORDER

WP.No.21563 of 2023

e oA
c Qil
1rt [uE 2s8
',,. '/?(..,.,,

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

o
1;,
1o

¶52

Potula Mallesh v. Uniion of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Potula Mallesh v. Uniion 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

Guduru Narender Reddy Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Ananya Manchikatla Vs Kaloji Narayana Rao Health University

Dr. Aruna Vs State of Telangana

Vankuppala Narsimha Vs Osmania University

Eddrakanti Arvind Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana

Nimmakayala Subba Rao Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana