Allowed

Keshavulu Gurram v. The union of India

Telangana HC13 Dec 2024WP/32853/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed passport renewal for petitioner challenging Regional Passport Officer's refusal based on pending criminal case, ruling mere pendency not grounds for denial if cooperation is assured.

What did the court decide?

Directing Regional Passport Officer to consider reply and renew passport subject to undertaking not to leave India without permission and cooperation with trial court.

Keshavulu Gurram Vs The union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[3405 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32853 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Keshavulu Gurram, S/o. Janardhan Gurram, Aged about 55 Years, Occupation. Social Worker Rl/o. H. No. 9-6, SriniVasa Colony, Amangal Village and , mandal, Rangareddy District Telangana State-509321.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The union of lndia, [Vlinistry of External Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi.

¶12

2 The Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad Having office at 82215 to 219 Kummaraguda Secunderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of Indja praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of [t4andamus declaring the actions of the Respondent No.2 in rejecting the passpod vide application number HY'l 076998852924, dated 0411012024. on the basis of pending criminal proceedings as highly illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice in violation of Article 14,^'19 and 21 ol the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Respondent No-2

¶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 petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner

¶17

¶18

for passport vide application number HY1076998852924, dated 0411012024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KASOJU MAHESH CHARY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. V. V. VEDANTHA CHARYA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE JI,STICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.32853 OF 20.24

¶24

Mr. K.Ramesh Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner-

¶25

K.V.V.Vedanatha Chary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 ORDER:

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the respondent No.2's failurc to renew the petitioner's passport and for a direction on the respondent No.2/the Regional Passport Officer, to renew the passport of the petitioner.

¶27

'lhe respondent authorities are represented.

¶28

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents, it appears that the issue was considered by 2 Co-orciinal-e Renches in W.P.Nos.86<)7 of 202t3 and 22218 ol 2024. BoLh the learned Single Judges referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangachargulu u. Central Bureau of Inuestigation^I and came to the hnding that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to decline the renewal of passport provided that the petitioner is ready for renewal of passport. In this case the petitioner is also ready to cooperate with the Trial Court in concluding thc trial. 'lhe petitioner before the Court is also willing to cooperate with the

¶29

'^{zoZO crt.r-.t.1sC1} Szz

¶30

¶31

pending proceedings. This Court also finds factual similarities between Vangala Kosttti Rangacharyulu^{(supral and the present} case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court hetd that the Passport Authority cannot refuse the renewal of^passport on^{the groundol} pendency of criminal proceedings and accordingiy directed the Passport Authority lo renew the passport of the^petitioner without raising objection relating to pendency of criminal^proceedings.

¶32

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the writ^petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a^{reply to} the letter dated 17.1 1.2022. The respondent^{No.2 will 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 Kasluri l?ctngacharyulu (supral The^petitioner shall however be subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking aiong with an affidavit before the learned VII Additional District Judgecum-SC/ST Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar in Spl.SC.No.3S I of 2022 stating that the^petitioner will not leave India during^pendency of the Spl.S.C. without permission of the Court and the petitioner will cooperate with the Trial Court^{in concluding} the criminal^proceedings.

¶34

¶35

(ii) The Trial Court^{shall issue a certified copy of the} undertaking^{and aflidavit within 2 weeks from the date of} filing of the undertaking.

¶36

(iii) The^{petitioner shall submit the certifred copy of the} aforesaid undertaking^{along with the reply/explanation} before the concerned^{Passport Officerfor consideration of her} application for^{renewal of passport'}

¶37

(iv) The Passport^{Authority shall consider the documents in} the light of^{the observations made by the Courtsas well as} rhe undertaking^{and other documents filed by the petitioner'} 'lhe petitioner shatl also be at liberty^{to rely on the decisions} in this regard.^{'lhe petitionershalldeposit the original} passport before the^{Trial Court in criminal case for renewal} of the^{passport.The petitioner shall be at liberty to hle an} application beiore^{the learned VII AdditionalDistrict Judge-} cum-SC/S'f Court,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict, at L'B' Nagar} seeking^{permissionto travel outsideIndia'The learned Vll} Additional District^{Judge-cum-SC/ST Court, RangaReddy} District, at^{L.B.Nagarshall consider the samein accordance} with law.

¶38

¶39

W.P.No.32853 oT 2O2+ is disposed of in terms of the above. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

SD/. K.SREE RAMA MURTHY //TRUE COPY// ASSISTA NT GISTRAR To 1. The Secretary, SE N OFFICER 4.3.2. OneKumThe maraoRCC egronal to"uda Sri^p KasSASSThe ecunderabadoju port Officerunion Mahof esh [ndiTelaChaHvda, Minerabadngana istryState.Having of Extemaoffice I Affairs, Newat 82215 toDelhi.219 ry, Advocate [oPUCl 5. Two CD Copies TJ One CC to Sri K. V. V. Vedantha Charya (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC] GJP

/:;@

HIGH COURT

DATED:1311212024

ORDER

WP.No.32853 of 2024

lttE SI.qI (:
C
of,l
U
10 ,ltil zffi (
t t
PATC

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION}

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

7
4.b
/ttt
30

Keshavulu Gurram v. The union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshavulu Gurram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ellaiah Maddi Vs The Union of India

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Tradings Vs The State of Telangana

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

M/S.Shree Kalikadevi Tribal Sand Andmorram Labour Contract Mutual Aided Cooperative Society Limited Vs the State of Telangana

Dasari Santhosh Vs The State of Telangana

K. Prabhakara Rao, Hyd Vs General Bank (Crld)., Mumbai and 3 Ot