Shaik Abdul Nazeer Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Courtmaybe pleased} to issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularly one in the nature of Writof} Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents^{in seizing and retainingthe} petitioners passport bearing No. K8422267 which was renewed on^{27 -O8-2O12,as} illegal, arbitrary, violative of^principles of^{natural justice in violationof law laid down} by the Honble Supreme Court reported in the case^{of Suresh NandaVs C B l,} reported in 2008⁽⁵⁾ SCJ 392 Suresh^{NandaVs. C.B.l. - 24 January} '2008^{and also} in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of^{Bihar apart from violative of Articles1 and} 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 20 18

¶19

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in [he circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to forthwilh return the petitioners passport bearing No. K8422267 which was seized by the police and deposited in the courl of XV Addl. chief Metropolitan Magrstrate at Nampally, HyderabaC, pending disposal of the writ petrtion

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt ASADULLA SHAREEF (NOT PRESENT) Counsel forthe Respondents: AGp FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

i i I I II

¶23

\ \

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.37856 OF 2018

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Writ Petrtron is filed with the following relief

¶28

'/ssue a w tl, ordci ot dtrectDtt more panicularly one in the nature oi l^fi it of l,4andamus Coclaring the action of req:ortdents n seizing and retainng the pelttarcr's pas-spc( !:earing No K8422267 which t",as Tenevierl on 27 08.2012. as illegal ahitrary vtoiative oi trim;ples of natLtrai lustice in wolalion of larv laid cktttlt by lhc Hon'ble Suprene Coufi repotled n ite case o/ Sures/i Nanda v C B.l. tepotted n 2008(5) SC,J 392 - 24 January 2008 and also in iltr: case of Arnesh Kumar v S(ate af Eihar apan iiani vio!aiive of Adicles 1 and 21 of tlrc Constituiicn of lndia .

¶29

2 None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

¶30

q Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that during the course of investigation in Crime No. 21 of 2018 of the Women Police Statron. Begumpet, the passport of the petitioner was seized as part of the investigation and was produced before the Court of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, on 22.09.2018. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the passport was seized without any legal basis is untenable. Accordingly, he prays that the writ petition be

dismissed

t

2

I have perused the material available on record

¶35

5 The petrtionr:r contends that his passport was seized by the police in violatron of the applicable legal provisions. []owever the explanation offered by the respondent police authorities clearly establishes that the passport was seized during the course of investigation and rvas duly produced before the conrpetent Court ln view of this factual position, the contention of the petitioner that the seizure of his passport was without lawful authority IS u nfou n ded

¶36

6 Accordingly, while reserving the liberty of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law before the trial Court this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶37

lt/liscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition. shall

¶38

stand closed

¶39

\Di_ A. JAYASREE
SSISIANI REGI
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
t<br>To,
epartment, Sta
Il8;:i:H' Secretarv, Home D f Telangana, Secretariat,

¶40