Disposed

Girish Babu Makkena v. The Union of India

Telangana HC28 Nov 2024WP/32699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal of passport renewal due to criminal case pendency. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court directed the Passport Authority to renew the passport upon fulfillment of specific conditions to ensure cooperation in the ongoing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to submit a reply and undertaking; directed Passport Authority to consider application for renewal in compliance of Supreme Court findings.

Girish Babu Makkena Vs The Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴⁰⁵ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE^{MOUSHUMIBHATTACHARYA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32699^{OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Girish Babu Makkena, S/o.^{Venkaiah Makkena, Age: 40 years, Occ:lnterior} arslnes., Ryo. F.No.102,^{P.No.'164/8and '165/8,Sri RaghavaResidency-'l, SR} Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Union of lndia, Rep. by^{its Secretary, Ministryof ExternalAffairs, South} Block, Raisina Hill, New^{Delhi, Delhi, lndia}

¶12

The Regional Passport Officer,^{Regional passport office,Hyd-erabad,D No'8-} 2-215 t; 219, Kummaraguda,^{Secuhderabad, Telangana} -^500003.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition Under Article 226 ol^{the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of a} wRlT oF MANDAMUS or^{any other appropriate writ, order or directiondeclaring} the action of the Respondent^{No.2 in refusingthe passport servicesto the} Petitioner by issuing the^{Letter vide Ref.No.O8J1317264615124dl. 05.03.2024} pursuant to the Application No. HY2076312510524^{dt- 29.02.2024on accountof} pendency of c.c.No. 112012022 and filing^{Numbercc No. 1224712022on lhe file} of Principal Junior civil^{Judge cum Xl Additional JudicialMagistrateof Firstclass,} Medchal Malkajgiri District^{at Kukatpally, for the offences U/s. 406, 42O' 426' 505} Rl/w 120 B of IPC as illegal, arbitrary^{and in violation of the rights of the Petitioner} under Article¹ 4, 19 and^{2 1 of the constitutionof lndiaand consequently set} aside the Letter vide^{Ref.No.O8J1317264615124dt. 05.03.2024.}

¶15

I.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to Suspend the Letter vide Ref.No. O8J1317264615124 dl. 05.03,2024^pursuant to the Application No. HY2O763'12510524 dt- 29.02.2024 by renewing the petitioner's passport bearing No. M2699718, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY

¶18

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

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER

i lr

I I !

i I I I I

THE HON'BLE^{JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA}

¶24

WRIT PE^{TITION No.32699 oF 2024}

¶25

Mr.Sushil Kumar^{Pandey, Iearnedcounsel lor the petitioner'} Ms.N.V.R.Rajya^{takshmi,learned counsel representing Mr'GadiPraveen Kumar'} Deputy Soliciior^{General of India, for respondent Nos l and 2'}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present^{writ petition has been hledchallengingthe failure} of respondent^{No.2/Regional Passport Officer inrenewingthe} petitioner's^{passport and for a direction on the respondentNo'2to} renew the^{passport of the petitioner}

¶28

2 The respondent^{authorities are represented'}

¶29

After hearing^{learned counsel appearingfor the petitioneras} well as the^{respondents, it appearsthat the issue was consideredby} 2 Co-ordinate^{Benches in W'P'Nos 8697 of 2023 ar,.d 22218 of 2024'} BoththelearnedSingteJudgesreferredtothejudgmentofthe Hon'ble Supreme^{Court in VangalaKastuiRangacharyuluu' Central} Bureau of^{Inuestigationland came to the hndingthat mere pendency} of criminal case^{cannotbe a groundto decline the renewalof} passport. The^{petitioner before the Court is also willing to cooperate} with the pending^{proceedingsThis Court also finds factual} similarities between^{the present case and vangala Kastui}

¶30

'zozo^{crt.r.t.(sc) szz}

Rangachary ulu (supra) where the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that the Passporr_ Authority cannot refuse the renewal of passport on the ground of pcnclcncy of criminal proceedings and accordinglv directed the PassporL Authority to renew the passport of the petitioner without raising objection relating to pendency of criminal proceedings.

¶35

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Writ petition can be disposed ol by permitting the petitioner to submit a reply to the letter dated O5.O3.2O24 and directing the respondent No.2 to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and take steps for renewal of the passport in due compliance of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra). The petitioncr shall however comply with the following conclitions:

¶36

(i) The petitioncr shall submit an undertaking along u.ith an affidavit before the Iearncd X Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally in c c.No. 12247 of 2022 staLing that the petitioner w l not leave India during pendcncv of the C.C. without permission of the Court and that the petirioner r.r,ill cooperate with the Triar courr. in concluding the crimina I proceed ings.

¶37

(ii) The Trial Oourt shall issue a certihed copy of the undertaking and affidavit within 2 weeks from the date of hling of the undertaking.

¶38

¶39

(iii) The petitioner^{shall submitthe certified copy of the aforesaid} undertaking^{along with the reply/explanation before the concerned} Passport Ofhcer^{for consideration of his applicationfor renewalof} passport.

¶40

(iv) The Passport^{Authority shall considerthe documentsin the light} of the observations^{made by the Courts as well as the undertaking} and other documents^{frled by the petitioner' The petitioner shail also} be at liberty to^{rely on the decisions in this regard'}

¶41

(v) The petitioner^{shall deposit the original passportbefore the Trial} court in criminal^{case for renewal of the passport.The petitioner} shall-at w liberty to^{hle an application before the iearnedX} Metropolitan Magistrate^{at Kukatpallyseeking permission to travel} outside India.^{The learnedX Metropolitan Magistrateat Kukatpally} shall consider^{the samein accordancewith law'}

¶42

5 W.P.No.32699^{of 2024 is disposed of in terms of the above'}

¶43

Miscellaneous^{applications pending, if any, shall stand closed'}

¶44

There shall be no^{order as to costs'}

¶45

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT EGISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

SEC N OFFICER

¶48

To 1 The Secretary,^{Unionof lndia,Ministry of External Affairs' South Block'} Raisina Hill, New^{Delhi, Delhi, lndia.}

¶49

2 i[e neqlo;af Passport^{officei, Regionalpassp-ort office' Hydera9ld' D No S-} )'its' ti iis. xummaraguda,^{secinderabad, Telangana- 500003'}

¶50

J o;" bb to siit susullkutrlRn^{PANDEY, Advocate[oPUCl} 4 il; CC to^{SCr -CnOf pnAVif r.r KUMAR, DeputySolicitor Generalof lndia} loPUCl

5 Two CD CoPies

SA MP 9.,

':i

HIGH COURT

DATED:2811112024

ORDER

(6\ r-^.' ..<br>(-
o
(.)
0 I JAil 20m
(t
PAI cHel)

WP.No.32699 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

-7 /4 / /tt^/.tc

Girish Babu Makkena v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Babu Makkena 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

Maheshwari Stone Quarrying Company Vs The State of Telangana

Ganesh Kondapalli, Vs The Union of India

Sai Prakash Pasumarthy Vs Union of India

Ms. AksharaNagam, Vs Union of India

Sri Sai Lakshmi Primary Sheep Breeders Co-Operative Society, Vs Dist Collector, Nalgonda Dist and 10 Ot

Mr. Mangulal Vankunavath Vs Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited