Disposed

Pakalapati Hari Babu v. The Union of India

Telangana HC8 Apr 2025WP/10371/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the refusal to renew a passport due to pendency of a criminal case, the Telangana High Court directed the Respondents to issue an emergency certificate if the petitioner files a request and submits an undertaking not to leave India without court permission and to cooperate in criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Vice Consul to issue an emergency certificate within two weeks if the petitioner submits an undertaking not to leave India without court permission.

Pakalapati Hari Babu Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

3255I

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHREVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10371 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pakalapati Hari Babu, S/o. P. Rama Rao, aged about 38 years, Occ.Software Engineer at U.K., R/o. 35 Crown Apartments, Christchurch Court, Banbury, Post code.OXl6 5EN, United Kingtom, Rep. by his fatheriGPA holder Pakalapati Rama Rao, S/o. Appaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-52, UPS School Road, Lachannagudem Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Union of lndia, rep. by lts Secretary, Govemment Ministry of Extemal Affairs, New Delhi.

¶12

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, D.No. 82215to219, Near Prashant Theatre, Kummarguda. Secunderabad - 500003.

¶13

The Vice Consul (Passport), Consulate General of lndia, 2 Darnley Road, Birmingham, 816 BTE, United Kingdom.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not renewing the passport of the writ petitioner bearing No. M8050427 on the ground of pendency of criminal case, as highly arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 21 oI the Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Honourable High Court and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents to forthwith renew the passport of the petitioner vide the passport renewal application vide Application Reference

¶16

Number (ARN) 24-2005954902, dated 23-12-2024 tor renewal of his passport bearing No. M8050427, without reference to pendency of criminal case.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 respondents to consider the passport renewal application of the petitioner, vide Application Reference Number (ARN) 2;-2005g54go2, dated 2312-2024, for renewal of his passport bearing No. M8050427 forthwith, without reference to pendency of criminal case against him. pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

counse l ro r the Pe titi on "'' rt T'.tfl1REtE,ffioor=rwARA RAo

¶20

counserrortheRespon'""''i$.i;i[fri$&'=ll'lr.^-,

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.lO371 of 2025

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Aggrieved by the action of respondents in not renewing the passport of the petitioner bearing No.M8050427 on the ground of pendency of crimina-l case, and to direct the respondents to forthwith renew the passport of the petitioner in view of passport renewa-l application dated 23.12.2024 without reference to the pendency of criminal case, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Heard Mr.A.Giridhar Rao, learned senior counsel for Mr.A.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India on behalf of respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶26

The facts of the case in brief are that, petitioner is holding an Indian Passport bearing No.M8050427 issued by office of respondent No.2 on 09.04.2015 valid upto

¶27

¶28

08.O4.2025. The petitioner, under the provisions of Passport \ct and Rules made thereunder, has filed an applicatiorr for reneu,al of passport on 23.12.2024. It is submittecl th at petitioner is an Engineering graduate and secured a job in United Kingdom and his immigration in United Kingclom is valid upto 19.03.2026. lt is further submittcd that passport renewal application has been submitted before respondent No.3 i.e., Consulate General of India, Brimingham and as per rules, respondent No.3 called for police verification from India and the police have submitted a report informing that a criminal case in C.C.No.542 ol 2O2O is pending against the petitioner on the file of Jr-rdicial First C1ass Magistrate. Sathupally, Khammam. as such the passport of the petitioner has not been renen'ed. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

Mr.A.Giridhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner would fairllr submit that in the application for renewal, petitioner has not mentioned about the pending criminal case and draws attention of this Court to the e mail communication of the petitioner

¶30

¶31

dated 13.01.2025 communicated to respondent^No.3 seeking certain clarifications regarding provisions^for issuing an emergency passport release.

¶32

Ms.N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, learned^counsel appearing on beha-lf of Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar,^learned Deputy Solicitor Genera-l of India would submit^{that as per} Section 4, Schedule II Part II of Passports Rules,^{1980, an} emergency certificate may be issued for the^{purpose of} travel. Section 4, Schedule II Part II are^extracted hereunder for the purpose of reference:

¶33

*4. Classes of persons to rtthom the difference classes of passports and trauel documents mag be issued -^The classes of persons to ttlrcm the classes of passports^or trauel documents referred to respectiuelg in sub-section⁽¹⁾ and sub-section (2) of Section 4 mag be issued, shall^{be as} specified respectiuely in Part I or Part II as^{tLrc case maA be,} of Schedule II.

¶34

Schedule II Part ll :- Emergencg Certificate : (i) Citizens of Indta abroad^tt-tho lnue been refused passport, or uhose passports lwue been impounded or reuoked, or u.tln haue to be repatriated to India."

¶35

Learned standing counsel appearing on beha,lf of

¶36

respondents further submits that the above said provision

¶37

¶38

¶39

enables petitioner to travel to India based on an emergency certificate and if the petitioner makes an application for issuance ,rf emergency certificate, the same woutd be considered by respondent No.3 and after the certificate is issued, petitioner can travel to India and contest the pending cnminal case against him.

¶40

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner accedes to the submission made by learned standing counsel and r.l,ould submit that appropriate orders be passed.

¶41

B. Recording the submission of learned counsel on either side, lhis r,r,rit petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to issue emergency cerl.ificate as per Section 4 (supra) of Passports Rules, 19tlo strictly in accordance to lau, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of filing of appiication by the petitioner, if any, enabling the petitioner to travel to India, on compliance of the followinq direct ions:

¶42

(i) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking along with an afhdavit before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupally, Khammam in C.C.No.542 ctf 2O2O

¶43

¶44

stating that the petitioner will not Ieave India during pendency of the C.C. without permission of the Court ald the petitioner will cooperate in concluding the criminal proceedings.

¶45

(ii) The respondents shall be at' liberty to take steps on breach of the undertaking.

¶46

Recording the above said submission, writ^petition

¶47

is disposed of, accordingly.

¶48

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if alry, shail^stand

¶49

closed. However, there shall be no order as to^costs

¶50

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD DE TY REGISTRAR-----

//TRUE COPYII

CTION OFFICER

To,

The Secretary, Govemment Ministry of External Affairs, Union of lndia, New Delhi.

¶55

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, D.No. 822151o219, Near Prashant Theatre, Kummarguda. Secunderabad - 500003.

¶56

The Vice Consul (Passport), Consulate General of lndia, 2 Damley Road, Birmingham, 816 8TE, United Kingdom.

¶57

One CC to SRI AARE VENKATESWARA RAO, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶58

One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Solicitor General of lndia), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC]

¶59

Two CD Copies.

%'""

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810412025

CC TODAY

ORDER

1 HE ST41 €.
(
6
q ^ r
[B APN zffi o
r. ll
*
:D
?i-cnp-:.-- =Li. ,;:-'l

¶66

WP.No.10371 of 2025

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Pakalapati Hari Babu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pakalapati Hari Babu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parigi Ranga Reddy, Vs State of Telangana

Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs The Union of India

Md.Abdul Shukoor Vs The Union of India.

Ashwin Kumar Thota Vs The Union of India

Y.Thammaiah and 3 Others Vs the State of Tg., Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 2 Others

Banaiah, Vs The Joint Collector