Allowed

Ellaiah Maddi v. The Union of India

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024WP/31669/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that pendency of criminal cases is not a valid ground to refuse passport renewal. It directed the Regional Passport Office to process the application while ensuring the petitioner complies with specific safeguards and obtains court permission for travel.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 3 to issue the passport after the petitioner submits an undertaking not to leave India during pendency of criminal proceedings and cooperates with the trial court.

Ellaiah Maddi Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴⁰⁵¹

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31669 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ellaiah Maddi, S/o. Sailu Maddi, age.53 years, Occ. Retired Service, R/o.H.No.20-1-31, Bus Stand Colony, Godavarikani, Peddapalli, Telangana505209

¶9

...PET|TiONER AND

¶10

The Union of lndia, Ministry of External Affairs, Represented by its Principal Secretary, South Block, New Delhi-'l 10001

¶11

The Passport Authority of lndia, Represented by its Chief Passport Officer, PSP Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No.B, Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-1 10001

¶12

The Regional Passport Office, Represented by Regional Passport officer, Hyderabad' Telangana

¶13

...RES'oNDENTS

¶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/direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action, of the respondenl no.3 in issuing the Letterbearing no.FCL/31088058/21 dt 27-04-2021 thereby closing my Passport Application No .HYC75C50886861 19 dt 01-1 1-2019 of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondent no.3 to forthwith issue a Passport to the Petitioner.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed -in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Letter bearing no.FCL/31088058121 dt.27-04-2021 issued by Respondent no.3.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.ADITYA FOR SRI A.SAIIIPATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR

¶18

GENERAL OF INDIA

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HC'N'BLE JUSTICE MoUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶21

IVRIT PETITION No.3l66 9 0F 2024

¶22

Mr T.Adrtya, learned rounsel reprcsenbng Mr. A.sarnpath Kumar, lcarned counsel lor the pettroner Lcarned Central Gor e 146,111 Stanrling Counsel appcaring for t]re respondcnt Nos. I ro l

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present $,rit pctition has becn fr lco b1 th, p.trtirrrrr.r. challenging th : failure of the respondent No.3-Regionirl passport Officer in not rssulng a passport and for a directirrn on Ihc respondent No 3 to process the petitioner,s application lor issuinq the passport

¶25

2 The respc ndent authorities are represented

¶26

After hea..ing learned counsel appearing lor thr: petitioncr as well as the rcsp rndents, it appears that the issue was considcred b,y 2 Co-ordinate B:nches in W.p.Nos.g69T of 2023 and.22218 of 2O24 Both the learncd Single Judges referred to the juclgment ol the Hon'ble Suprem,r Court in Vongala Kastui Rangac:haryulu u. OentroL Bureau of Inuesttgationl and came to the linding that mere pendency of criminal casc cannot be a ground to decline the rencr.l,al of passport. The pr:titioncr beforc thc court is also willing [o,]oop.rar(. with the pending proceedings. This court arso finds racrual similarities betrveen the present case and Vangala Kastui Rangacharyulu (:;upra) where the lJon'bre Supreme court }-reld that

l!ag:rl.t.r-(sc) s72

_il

lhe Passport Authority cannot refuse the renewal of passport on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings and accordingly directed the Passport Authority to renew the passport of the petitioners without raising objection relating to pendency of criminal proceedings.

¶31

Accordingly, this court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 to take steps for issuance of passport in due compliance of the lindings of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu,s case (supra). The pctitioner shall however comply with the following conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit belore the lcarned i Additional Junior civil Judge, Godavarikani in c c No. i6o of 2019 staring that the petitioner wilr not leave India during pcndencv of the said case without permission of the Court and that the petitioner will cooperate with the Trial Court in concluding the criminal proceedings.

¶33

(ii)^'t'he Trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the undertaking and aflrdavit wittrin 2 weeks from the date of filing oI the undertaking.

¶34

(iii) The petitioner shall submit the certified copy of the aforesaid undertaking before the concerned passport Officer for consideration of his application for issuance of passport.

¶35

¶36

(iv) The Passport Authority^{shall consider [he documenrs in the light} of the observat ons^{made by the Court as well as the undertaking} and other docurnents^{hledby the petitioner. The peritionershzrllalso} be at liber$ to^{t el1r} 6n the^{decisionsin this regard'}

¶37

(v) The petilior e r shall be at libe rty^{to file an applicationbefo re thc} Iearned I Additional Junior Civil^{Judge,Godavarikaniseeking} permission to travel outside India.^{The learnedI Additionat Junior} Civil Judge,^{(iodavarikanishall considerthc same inaccordance} with law.

¶38

W.P.No.3 1669 ol 2024 is disposed^{of in terms of lhc above'} Interim orders if any, shall stand^{vacated and allconnected} applications art disposed ol.^{'l'here shall be no order as to costs'}

¶39

¶40

*.iSfllY'#"Sr'ffH //TRUE COPYil i---'-""-' SECNdfi OFFICER

¶41

I Additional Additional J.unior Civil Judge, Godavarikani.Judge, Godavarikani.

¶42

1 I Additional Additional J.unior Civil Judge, Godavarikani.Judge, Godavarikani. 2 The Principar Secretarv. u.iron ortnoiJ, rrrrinistry or Extemar Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-1 i09b j

¶43

3, The chief Passport officer. passport Authority of rndia, pSp Division, Ministrv 4. of Extemal Affa rs. Room r.to.e, pEiijrl'-ri_oi]J, iirltiirrg, New Dethi_11000i The Reqionat^passoort omc"r,'negi6nii^'p;;;ilri dfii;e, Hyderabad, Telangana. o.5. 9n" Q9^{to SRt A.SAMpAT[[p.M4R,} Advocate . r' e'r vvLrvr[opUC] 91q 99-t9^{sEt GADI eRAVEETv} rcuruini{,'oi. ddiic'iion cENERAL oF INDIA [OPUCI 7 Two CD Copies PSK. BS

CC TODAY

HIGH COURI-

MB,J

DATED:12112,.12024

ORDER

WP.No.31669 of 2024

,'j
\2
,.i7 .
s
t
Sr"
\'
.ri ./
&,/
ct , CIH * ,-./,
-?

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

Ellaiah Maddi v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ellaiah Maddi 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Scion Foods and Feeds Pvt. Limited, Vs Punjab National Bank Bank

Shakamuri Sravan Kumar Vs Shakamuri Haritha

Mohammed Irfan Vs The Union of India

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Tradings Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Vbc Ferro Alloys Ltd. , Vs Union of India

Sri R. Devender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana