Kotha Jaipal Reddy Vs The Union of India

about 48 Years,^Occ. Kotha Jaipal^{Reddy, S/o SatvanarayanaReddy'Aged} DIlii"o''il"--ilrlo.^{3-73,' Lai(midevipallvVillase'} Gangadhara^Mandal, kin.n"gut^{KarimnagarDistrict- 505445'}

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The Union of^{lndia, Rep by Secretary to Government Ministry of External} affairs, New^Delhi

¶15

2 The Reqional^{Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office'D No 8-2-215.1o} , ib i;';'d;.riJ"'in^{ir,""i.i, x' m-m i ri g uo a' Secund ra bad'H vde rabad'} Telangana 500003

¶16

a Dommati Yuqender,^{S/o Naravana. Aged about39 years'O9c G9pCompany} ;#li[;'hi;"; iiJ^{r6-q sTis'aank iotonv'KarimNagar'Karim Nagar} District

¶17

R3 impleaded^{as perC.O.dt.25'08'2025 in lA No'2/2025'}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under^{Artacle 226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filedtherewith' the High Court maybe} pleasecl to issue a^{Wrlt order or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of} Mandamus^{declarrngthe orderspassedby the RespondentNo 2' in rejectingthe} petitioner,sapplicationNoHYTOT52T3T61925forRe.issuanceofpassportvide orders dated.l⁴ '07 '2025^{as illegal, arbitraryand in Utterviolation of principles of} natural^{justice and consequently set aside the orderspassedby the 2nd} Respondent^{videFrle No HY707527 3761925 daled'14 07 '2025and further direct} the2ndRespondenttore-issuethePassportofthePetitionerwithoutreferenceto the^{pendingcriminal case.}

fl

a

IA NO :1 0F²⁰²⁵

Petition under Section^{151 CPCpraying that in the circunstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the HighCourtn ray be pleased to} direct the Respondent^{No.2 to reissue the passport to the petitionervide} applicationNo.HY7075273761925dated.02-07'2025,withrlttreferencetothe pending criminal case,^{pending disposal of the abovewrit petittt} 'n

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS}

¶25

Counsel for the^{RespondentsNo.1&2: Ms'ANJALIAGARW'\I}

¶26

-- Counsel for the^{RespondentsNo.3 1}

¶27

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶28

I ,

¶29

. -i':1:a.9a"{

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.23723 of 2025

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the orders passed by respondent No.2, ln rejecting the petitioner's application No.HY7O75273761925 for re-issuarce of passport uide order dated 14.07.2025.

¶33

Heard Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents. Perused the record.

¶34

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5526 of 2022, dated23.O2.2022 and therefore, the same order may be passed in this writ petition as well. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

¶35

"Accordingly, the respondent No.3 is directed to process the petitioners passport application vide File No.HYFO638O774952l and issue passport to the petitioner without raising objection with regard to pendency of Crime No.71 of 2O2O on the file of Nandigama Potce Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, subject to tJre petiLioner fulfilling other conditions in the revelant Act

¶36

2

¶37

NBX,' w.P. No.21723 0f 2025

¶38

,t

¶39

and RuLes. With the above^o bservation / dire^r: ions, this wnt. petrtion is disposed of

¶40

In terms of the order passed by this Court ir W.P.No.5526 of 2022, dated 23.O2.2O22, and for the^reasorlr, elike, this^writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent :.2 to^process the pel.itiolrers passport application vide File No.HY7075273761925 and issue passport to the^petitioner without raising objection with regard to petrrlr:ncy of^Crime No. 15O of. 2024 on the file of Kothapalli^{:)olice Station,} Karimnagar, subject to the petitioner fulfilling^o. her^conditions in the revelart Act and Rules. There shall bc :ro order^{as to} costs.

¶41

Miscr:llaneous applications, if any^pencl:n,3, shall^stand

¶42

clo sed.

¶43

/

¶44

S .H.S. I;OWRI SHANKAR sPrs rANT REGTSTRAR ,/ //TRUE COPY// \I SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

l The secretarv to Government Ministry of Externar affairs, Urion of rndia, New Delhi.

¶47

a

¶48

2 The Regional passport Officer, Regional passport Office, D No.g_2_2.15 to 2lg, Near^prashanih Theater, Xumiiririgud;:tJcunora', ; Hti";;;;,* Telangana 500003

¶49

One CC to SRt THOOM SR|N|VAS, Advocate. [OpUCl

¶50

4 One CC to Ms.ANJAL| AGARWAL, Advocate. tOpUCl

¶51

Two CD Copies

BSK

BS

I

' '"r'-.;1n

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912025

-.-a
,., ',7..'
. Z0:ti 20ffi
'\ i.-
:.

¶59

ORDER

¶60

WP.No.23723 of²⁰²⁵

¶61

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

(
,<br>r L

¶63

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶64

WRIT PETITION 0.5525 0F 2()22

¶65

ORDER

¶66

This Writ Petition. under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶67

India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief

¶68

"to lssue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the ld Respondent in issuing impugned letter No. HYF063A07749521, dt.30.12-2021 in refusing to issue passport to the Petitioner vide passport Application No.HYF063807749521, dt. 16. 12.2021 on the ground that criminal case is pending agatnst him in Crime No.71/2020 dt. 20.04.2020 of PS Nandigama, Mahaboobnagar District, U/s 447, 427, 379, 506 r/w 34, 188, 269, 270 IPC, 3 Epidemics Diseases Act 1897, 51(B) of the Disasters Management Act 2005, as illegal, and arbitrary and also aqainst Sec 5 (2) (c) of the Passpot-ts Act 1967, to be read with Sec 6 (2) (0 and also contrary to the judgement of the Honourable Supreme coutt of India in Cnminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017, dt 27.09.2O21 of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation and consequently direct the 3'd Respondent to issue the Passport to the Petitioner, without reference to the pendency of Criminal Case in Cr.No.71/2020 against the petitioner herein..."

¶69

Heard Sri Y.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. lithender, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

¶70

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a case in Crime No.71 of 2020 on the file of Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, was registered against the petitioner and others. for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 379, 506 read with 34,

¶71

DT,SA,J ''W N..i5l6 o12022

¶72

2

¶73

188, 2,59 and 27O of I.P.C and Section 3 of :h: Epidemics Diseases Act 1897. The petitioner is arrayed as A(:cLrsed No.4 in the said crime. Aggrieved by registration of siri(; crime, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.22Ll of 2O2O before this :lcurt and this Court '/ide order, dated 20.O5.2O2O, in I.A.Nc,1 of 2O2O, granted interim stay of all further proceedings. as p-ayed for, in the sub.ject Crime No.71 of 2O2O. The said order i:; 1 force. It is further submitted that though the petitioner made al application for issuance of passport^y/de Application Refer<:nce No.211008968367, dated 16.12.2021, the same is not cr;nsidered on the ground that criminal case is pending against hirr, Except the subject criminal case, wherein stay was grantec, there is no other case pending against the petitioner and ultinrately, prayed this Court to direct the respondent authorities to is!;ue passport to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, Ierrled counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the de(:i!;ion of the Honourable Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Ranga,charyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigationr.

¶74

On the other hand, Sri B.Jithender, lee.red Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondr,:nts. would

¶75

't^{a.ruo.52:+o ofzoztrn Crt.A No.1343of zotT} O.det, dated 17.09. 2t)27

¶76

DTSl,J WP No.ji26 0f2022

¶77

3

¶78

submit that after careful examination of the application of the petitioner for issuance oF passport by the competent authority, the same was refused. It is submitted that the respondent authorities would consider the application of the petitioner, if he obtains permission to travel abroad from the Court where the criminal case is pending against him. There is no such permission obtained by the petitioner and ultimately, prayed this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶79

Here it is pertinent to state that this Court vide order, dated 20.05.2020 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2O2O in Crt.p.No.2211 of 2020 was pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.71 of 2020 on the file of Nandigama Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered against the petitioner and others, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 379,506 read with 34, 188, 269 and 27O of I.p.C and Section 3 of the Epidemics Diseases Act 1897, and the said order is in force. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi's (supra), pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for issuance of passport. Since the investigation in the subject Crime No.71 of 2O2O is stayed, the petitioner cannot be relegated to the trial Court and seek

¶80

Dr SA,.l \ P No.5526 ol202l

¶81

4

¶82

necessary orders, as contended^{by the learned ccunselfor the} Central Government.

¶83

Under these circumstances, since the^{procesCings in the} subject Crime No.71 of 2020 were stayed^{by thls Court vlde} order, Cated 20.O5.2O2O^passed in^{I.A.No.1crf 2020in} Crl.P.No.2211 of 2020 and in view of the decision^ttf the^Hon'ble Apex Ccurt in Vangala Kasturi's case^(supra), t1(l^requestof the petitioner can be acceded to.

¶84

Accordingly, the respondent No.3 is direct€d to^process File [he petitioner's passport application ,'ide No. HYFCr63B0774952l and issue^passport to t1(,^petitioner without raisjng objection with regard to^pendertc'r' of Crime No.71 ,:f 2020 on the file of Nandigama Poli(:e Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate. subject to the^{petitio'terfulfilling} other conditions in the relevant Act and Rules.

¶85

B. Wlth the above observation s/directio ns, this \vr t^petitionis disposed of. No costs.

¶86

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending it' this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶87

Dr. SHAMEEIvI AKTHER, J

¶88

Date: 23.O2.2O22

Kotha Jaipal Reddy v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotha Jaipal Reddy v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Bheem Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Kan Enterprises, Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited

B. Dasaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sangeeta Jain Vs The Union of India

Sri. Abhilash Reddy Sampathi Vs The union of India

S.Raghu Prasad Vs Central Bank of India, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad