Allowed

Rohith Kedia v. Regional Passport Office and another

Telangana HC9 Jan 2023WP/553/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Regional Passport Office acted illegally by directing the petitioner to surrender his passport without issuing a show-cause notice or considering his explanation under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. The proceedings were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings dated 26-12-2022 directing surrender of passport set aside; liberty granted to respondent to pass orders after considering petitioner's explanation.

Rohith Kedia Vs Regional Passport Office and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOUR.ABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 553 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rohith Kedia, S/o.Ratan Keclia, Age.47, Occ.Business, Rl/o3-6-236, St.No.15, lane next to Minerva Coffee, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Regional Passport Office, D.No.8-2-215 to 219,Near Prashanth Theatre, Kummarguda, Secunderabad, Telangana 500003.

¶12

2 Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Extemal Affairs South Block, New Delhi

¶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 Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1St respondent directing the petitioner to surrender the passport vide impugned proceedings No.HYD/30/POUP\C|709l2O22 dt. 26/1A2022 without considering the explanation dl. 61112023 of the^petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law and consequently permit the petitioner to travel to the countries as per visa for a period of two months commencing from third week of January to 3rd week of March 2023 while setting aside the order issued by the 1st respondent.

.i-

lA NO:^'f OF 2023

Petition un, ler Section^'151 CPC praying that in the c i1)umstances stated in the affidavit file d in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the rperation of the impugned procer:,Jings vide NO. HYD/30/POL/P\C|7O9|2022 issued by the 1st respondent as otherwise the petitioner will sufftr loss and injury.

¶19

Counsel for the P rtitioner: SRl. SUBRAHMANYAM KLIRELLI'

¶20

Counsel for the R rspondents: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INT lA)

¶21

The Gourt made t re following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.553 of 2o23

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri Subrahmanyarn Kurella, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶27

Petitioner herein is the holder of Passport bearing No.23358O65. According to Sri Subrahmanyam Kurella, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though the Passport bearing No.23358065 of the petitioner is valid up to 22-09-2025, leaves were over, therefore, petitioner requested the respondent authorities to issue leaves. But they have issued fresh passport bearing No.Z69O569O, which is valid up to 21-O8-2O32. There is no dispute that petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.Nos.459 and 4903 of 2022 pending on tlee file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, for the offences under Sections 448, 341 and 506 of IPC.

r-<br>

Respo rdent No. t had issued rtotice dated Ol-12-2O22 informing the petitioner abcut his

¶34

involvemenl in aforesaid C.Cs., receipt of adverse Police verification^'eport and requested the petitioner to submit his explanal ion.

¶35

Petitior er herein had submitted his t:xplanation dated 05-12-2022. Without considering ttre said explanation, respondent No.1 vide impugned pror:eedings dated 26-12.2022, directed the petitioner 1o surrender his Passport and also to furnish the certifi,:<l copies of acquittal ord:rs or permission to travel abrozul fr:om the trial Court 'o here the aJoresaid proceedings e-I'e pending against tJre p, :titioner.

¶36

Perusal cf the record would reveal that rr:spondent No. 1 did not issue any show cause notice:ri. terms of Section 1O(3) :f the Passports Act, 1967. Howe,r'er. to the notice dated )1-12-2022, petitioner herein ha,1 already submitted hi,r explanation on 05-12-2022.^'Ihe said

I t

explanation was not considered. Without passing any order under Section 10(3) of the.Act, respondent No. 1 cannot direct the petitioner to surrender his Passport. Therefore, proceedings dated 26-12-2022 issued by respondent No.1 directing the petitioner to surrender his Passport is illegal and contrar5r to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967. Therefore, the said proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition 1S disposed of setting aside the proceedings dated 26-12-2022 issued by respondent No.1. However, liberty 1S granted to respondent No.l to pass orders under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 on consideration of explanation dated 05-12-2022 submitted by the petitioner to the notice dated 01-12-2022. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to approach the aforesaid Court in the aforesaid C.Cs. seeking permission to travel abroad. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to^costs.

i,ll

)

r1
a)

As a ;equel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶48

pending in t:re Writ Petition shall stand close<l

¶49

SD/.T,SRIN!VAS
DT:PUTY REGISTRAR
t.v
/ffRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Regio tal Passport Office, D.No.8-2-215 to 219,Ne:rr Prashanth Theatre,
Kummargr da, Secunderabad, Telangana 500003.
2. The Secre ary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Extemal Affairs South Block, New
Delhi
3. One CC to Sri. Subrahmanyam Kurella, Advocate [OPLI(]]
4. One CC to Sri. Gadi Praveen Kumar (Dy. Solicitor Generar of ndia) Advocate
loPUCl
5. Two CD C( )pies
TJ
sw
.J

HIGH COUIRT

DATED:091)112023

ORDER

WP.No.553 o't 2023

/f6*<br>o 1 E JAll 2O?3 (
.1)
^fiC:q"l)'
,-::=*-'

DISPOSING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

4
)<
\t

Rohith Kedia v. Regional Passport Office and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohith Kedia v. Regional Passport Office and another

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

Danturi Manik Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Chinni Raj Kumar and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Sunkireddy Ramadevi Vs Sunkireddy Gayatri

B.Anitha Vs The State of Telangana, And 5 Others

Pabba Ravinder , Mangali Ravinder Vs The Tahsildar

B. Anuradha Vs The state of Telangana