Allowed

Ahmed Akram Abbas v. The Union Government Of India

Telangana HC6 Dec 2024WP/34222/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Telangana High Court held that the Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal on grounds of pending criminal case. The court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's explanation and renew the passport, subject to conditions including filing an undertaking before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted by directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's explanation and proceed with passport renewal compliance with Supreme Court pronouncements.

Ahmed Akram Abbas Vs The Union… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I^s405 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURAtsLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 34222OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ahmed Akram Abbas, S/o. Ahmed Anees Abbas, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. Flat No.202, on Plot No.^'t05, Peace Residency, Golden Heights ,Colony, Road No. 1, Upparpally, Ranga Reddy - 500048.

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Union Government Of lndia, Rep By lts Principal Secretary, IVlinistry Of External Affairs, South Block Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi, lndia.

¶12

2 The Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad office at D.No.8-2-215 to 219, Kummarguda, Secunderabad-500003, Telangana.

¶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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent for not considering the explanation dt. 1 9-1 1-2023 submitted by the^{petitioner pursuant} to the letter Ref. No. SCN/316132007123 dated 04-1 1-2023 for the application of^petitioner vide file No.HY1075569438923, dt. 13-07-2023 made for renewal of^passport of the petitioner bearing No.K5640589 as illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural^justice and against article 14 and 21 of our lndian Constitution and to direct Respondent No.2 to forthwith issue the Passport Bearing No.K5640589, of the petitioner by Renewing the same.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition und.r Section 15'1 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 2nd Res rondent to consider the explanation dt 19/1 '1,,2023 submitted by the Petitioner Dursuant to the letter Ref. No. scN/316132001123 dated 0411112023 for the application of petitioner vide file No.Hy1075569438923, dt. 1310712023 made for renewal of passport of the petitioner bearinr; No.K56405g9, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Pelitioner: SRI SyED ASHFAe AHMED

¶18

Counsel for the Rer;pondents: SRI pULtMAMIDI SHASHTDHAR REDDy The Court made the following: OROER

¶19

THE HON'BLE^{JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BTIATTACHARYA}

¶20

WRIT PETITION No^{..54222 0F 2024}

¶21

Mr Sycd Ashlaq^{Ahmed, learnedcounselappeadngtor the petitioner'} Mr P.shashidhar^{Reddy'learned counsel appcaring for Lhe respondcnts}

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Thc present writ^{petition has been filed challenging the failure} of the respondent^{No.2-Regional PassportOfficer in renewing the} petitioner's^{passportand for a direction on the respondcnt No'2 to} rcneu, the^{passportof the petitioner'}

¶24

2 The respondent^{authorities are rcpresented}

¶25

After hearing^{learned counselappearil'rgfor the petllioner as} well as the respondents,^{it appears that the issue u'as considcred by} 2 Co-ordinate^{Benches in W'P'Nos'8697 of 2023 and 22218 of 2024'} BoththelearnedSingleJudgesreferredtothejudgmentofthe I{on'blc Supreme^{Court in VangalaKastuiRangacharyuluu' Centrol} Bureau of Inuestigotionl^{and came to the finding that merependency} of criminal^{case cannot be aground to decline the re newalof} passport. The petitioner^{beforethe Courtis:rtso witling to cooperate} Court also^{lilrds factual} with the pending Proceedings.^This similaritiesbetweenthepresentcaseandVongalaKo]stun Rangacharyulu^{(szpro) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that} the Passport^{Authority cannotrefusethe renewalof passport on the}

¶26

'^{2020 crt.L.l.(sc)572}

¶27

¶28

ground of pr ndency of criminal proceedings and accr_rrcingly clirected the PassporL AuLhority to renew the passport of the petitioner without la;sing objection relating to pendency of criminal proceedrngs.

¶29

4' Accordingly, this court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposer:l :l b1' permitting the petitioner to submit eL reply to the letter daterl 04.11.,2023 and directing the respondenl No.2 to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and ?rkc stcps for renewal ol rlre passport in due compliance of the findings of the Hon'blc Suyrrcme Court in Vangala Kasturi RangacharllulLl (supra). 'l'he petitioner. shall hon ever comply with the follorving c(,nditions:

¶30

(i) The pctitio rer sha, submit an undertaking arong witLr an affidavit before the lr:r.rnecl XIII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate aLt Nampally, Ilyderabad ir C.C.No.2ll70 of 2O18 stating that the pctitirncr will not leave India drtring pendency of the C.C. without permission of Lhe Cour[ and tirrLt the petitioner will cooperate with the Trial Court in concluding tl'r r criminal proceedings.

¶31

(ii) The Trial C rurt shall issue a certified copy of the undertaking and affidavit withir 2 weeks from the date of filing of the undertaking.

¶32

(iii) The petr t oner shall submit the certified copy of th e aforesaid underterking a,ong with the reply/ explanation bcfore the concerned

: I I

,rt^-.aY

Passporl Officer for consideration of his application^{for rcnewal of} passport.

¶37

(iv) The Passport Authority shall consider the documents in the light of the observations made by the Courts as wcll as the^unclertaking and other documents hled by the petitioner. The^{petitioner shall also} be at liberty to rely on the decisions^{in this regard.}

¶38

(v) The pelitioner shall deposit the original^{passpor[ before the Trial} Courl in criminal case for renewal of^{the passport Thc petitioner} shalt bc at liberty to h1e an application^{before the learned XIII Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampaliy,^{Hyderabad seeking permission} to travel outside India. The learncd XIII^{Chief Metropolitan} Magistrale at Nampa11y, Hyderabad shali^{consider the samein} accordance with iaw.

¶39

W -P-No.34222 of 2024 is disposed of in^{terms of t.he above'}

¶40

Intcrim orders, if any, shall stand^{vacated and allconnected}

¶41

applications are disposed of.^{There shall be no order as to costs}

¶42

SD/. MOHD.^ISM L ASSISTAN^{T REGIS} AR

¶43

//TRUE COPY// SECTION^O CER

¶44

¶45

To, '1 . The Hon'ble Xlll Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate.at Namoallv' Hvderabad'} 2. The^{principatSecretary,"rJii;ir?y oi'E-i;;a-n?-jlrs, sou[hBiock Secretariat,} Raisina Hiil, New^{Delhi, lndia'}

¶46

1. The Regional^{Passport'Uifit"-r.,} fylelaQad^{oflice at DNo'8-2-2'15 to 219'} " K;il;ftrAa, Secunderabad-500003' Telangana , 4 il;' cc Y;"silWED^{AsHFAoAnueo'Advocatg.toPUCl} ;5ii""-'"5iiiF-urLr,rlg,#'#Pi'l'itn:#;',+Y'33[?3?fb]3'J'Rr.*,o' 6. One CC^{to SRI GADIP} oF lNDIA,^{Hish court t"'t;t];i;;fiei"-i'ganaat HvderabadtoPUCl}

¶47

1. Two CD^CoPies

CC TODAY

HIGH COUR'T

DATED: 0611212024

ORDER

1H E S IAIC
0 6 0i:[ 2]2{ i) Irl
i.:-!"-::''r -: "
\ :-::=::::

¶54

WP.No.34221>- of 2024

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

),{ ),OW

Ahmed Akram Abbas v. The Union Government Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed Akram Abbas v. The Union Government 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

The South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India

Kota konda Pitchaiah Vs The Union of India

Arelli Sailaja Vs Nagapuri Dasharatham alias Pogaku Dasharatham (Died)

M/s. Nmd Construction Vs The State Bank of India

M/s. Om Sai Stone Crusher Vs The State of Telangana

Busa Komal Vs The State of Telangana