Dismissed

Syed Minaaz v. The Union of India

Telangana HC10 Sept 2024WP/24925/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare that the respondents' refusal to process a passport application for correcting the date of birth was illegal and to direct them to issue the passport. The Court dismissed the petition

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner is directed to avail other remedies against the rejection order.

Syed Minaaz Vs The Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

[^32s6 I

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

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 24925 OF 2024

¶9

Between

¶10

fV.gd ![nga.z.^Slg^{S.ye9 Mashok, Aged about42 yrs..Occ. Advocate,R/o} H No. 47 -2-17 O, Paidipally, Warangat-Mandat, Warangat_506006.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Union of lndia, by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs patiata House Government of lndia, New Delhi.

¶14

2 Regional Passport.Officer, Hyder.1b-ad, D. No. 8-2-2 1 5 f D, 21 g, Kummarguda, Secunderabad, Telangana - 500003.

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS by decraring the action of the respondent authority rn not processing and not issuing the passport to me in respect of my application No Hy1076681628 524, dt, 2St6l2O24 for making nucessary corrections regarding date of birth as illegal, arbitrary un-authorized under law and unconstitutional and also against the principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondent authority to process the application submitted by the petitioner vide apptication No. Hy.1076681628524, dt, 251612024 for making necessary corrections regarding date of birth as 3011111981 instead of 20102/1976 and issue passport to the petitioner in accordance with the Provisions of the lndian passport Act, 1967.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petitron under Section 15'l 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 authority to process the application submltted by the petitioner vide application No. Hy 1076681628524, dl, 2Sl6t2OZ4 for making necessary corrections regarding date of birth as 3011111991 instead of

¶19

¶20

2010211976 and issue passport to the petitioner in accordance with the Provisional of the lndian Passport Act,^'1967.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. SALEEM

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

I I

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.24925 of 2o24

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of the respondents in not processing arld not issuing the passport to the petitioner in respect of his application No.HYl 076681628524, dated 25.06.2024 for making necessary corrections regarding date of birth as i11egal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently, pra-yed to direct the respondents to process the application of the petitioner and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶29

When the matter is taken up for admission, Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing lor the respondents, on instructions, has submitted that the application, dated 25.06.2024, submitted by the petitioner has been considered in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.19574 of 2023 and the same has been rejected by assigning the reasons.

¶30

In vieu, of the above submissions and since it is stated that the application, dated 25.06.2024 submitted by the petitioner has already been rejected, this Writ Petition is

¶31

¶32

CVBR, ] W p -24925 _2024

¶33

dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies as available in law if he is aggrieved with the rejection order passed by the respondents. No costs.

¶34

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shal1 stand closed

¶35

SD/.N. CHANDRA SEKHAR o ASSISTANT REGIS R

,TRUE COPY'

SECTION CER

To, 1. One CC to SRI M. SALEEM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC]

¶41

Two CD Copies BN

LS @

I I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 010912024

ORDER

WP.No.24925 of 2024

:_:::--:--
(x
(.
:
3 05 tlrv zul
SpATCT rf1',
rL- -

¶49

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Syed Minaaz v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Minaaz v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.K. Hussain Vs State of Telangana

H.K.Adnan Vs Union of India, represented by its Secretary

M/s. Lakshmi and Company, Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

Chandragiri Venkati Vs Assistant Commandant/Ddo, Central Industrial Security

Smt. R. Vijaya Lamxi Vs The State of Telangana

Nadipelli Naveen Kumar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others