Kalwakuntla Sudhakar Reddy Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Kalwakuntla Sudhakar Reddy Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of at the admission stage (with consent of parties): petitioner given liberty to submit explanation to the letter dated 23.03.2024 within one week, with respondents directed to dispose of it and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, preferably within four weeks, communicating the outcome to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs awarded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent No.2 (Regional Passport Office) in not issuing the passport to the petitioner vide file No. HyG066374262524 dated 19.03.2024 — in view of the police verification disclosing pending criminal proceedings in C.C. No.678 of 2020 (Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alair) and the Gazette Notification GSR No.570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, warranting directions to entertain the application for a 10-year passport under S.10 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 without reference to the pending criminal proceedings.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit an explanation to the letter dated 23.03.2024 within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

On such explanation, the respondent authorities are directed to dispose of the matter and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the petitioner's explanation, and to communicate the same to the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (single judge — Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar), W.P. No. 7232 of 2025, decided 10.03.2025: An agriculturist-petitioner whose normal-passport application (file No. HyG066374262524, dt. 19.03.2024) was not acted upon by the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad after police verification disclosed his alleged involvement in Cr. No. 61 of 2020 (Ss. 417, 341, 427, 326, 504 IPC), prosecuted as C.C. No. 678 of 2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alair — a case arising from a dispute with neighbour T. Ram Reddy over unauthorised bore-well digging in violation of the WALTA Act — and with reference to Gazette Notification GSR No. 570(E) dt. 25.08.1993, sought a mandamus under Article 226 directing issuance of a 10-year passport under S. 10, Passport Act 1967 read with Rule 12, Passport Rules 1980, without reference to the pending criminal case. Respondents' counsel did not dispute that the underlying case was civil in nature and that the petitioner's failure to answer the enquiry letter dt. 23.03.2024 was due to ill health. Recording the submissions of counsel on either side, the Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage with the parties' consent, granting the petitioner liberty to submit his explanation to the 23.03.2024 letter within one week, and directing the respondent authorities to dispose of it and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, preferably within four weeks, and to communicate the outcome to him. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed; no costs.

[^32s5 ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Originat Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO:72 320F 2025

Between:

Kalwakuntla Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Kalwakunfla Satyanaravana Reddv. Aoed about 6_0 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.4-40iln, AoaA fVo.a,'Authi Nagar, Peezadiguda, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Diskict.

AND

...PETITIONER

1 The Uniolof lndia,. Rep. by its Secretary. Ministry of External Affairs, CTV Division, TV-1 Section, Patiala House Ahnexe, G-overnment of lndia, New Delhi.

2 Ih"^{Regional Passport Office,D.No.8-2-215to219, Kummarguda,} Secunderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

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 one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not issuing the Passport to the Petitioner vide file No. HyG06637 4262s24, dated 19t3t2o24. as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequenfly to direct the Respondents to entertain the passport application vide file No. HYG066374262524. dated 1gl3l2o24 of the petitioner for a period of (10) years U/s.10 of Passport Act, 1967 and under Rule^.12 of passport Rules, 19g0 without reference to the Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No.678 of 2o2o on the file of the Honourable Judicial First class Magistrate at Alair and also Gazette Notification issued by the central Government vide GSR No.570 (E), dated 25lB/1993, in the interest of justice

//

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition unrirr Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircurrstances stated in the affidavit frled r support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respo " Jerrts to entertain the^passport applica:.ion vide file No. HYG0663742(j2li.2r, d.rted 191312024 of the^petitioner for a^pr:rirrd of ('10)^years without refere,rc;e t r the Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No.678 of :2020 on the file of the Honourable Judicial Firr;t Olass Magistrate at Alair and also^(;ezelte Notification issued by the Central Gr:lerrment vide GSR No.570 (E), datix ll5/t)/1993, pending disposal of the above Wril Petition, in the interest of^just ci)

Counsel for the Felitic,ner: SRl. G. ARUN KUMAR

Counsel for the Fl:;pc,ndents: Ms. NVR RAJYA LAKSHMI

The Court made ttre fc,llowing: ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRITPETITI ONNo.7232 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.NVR Rajya t akshmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:_

"to declare the action of the 2,d Respondent in not issuing the Passport to the^petitioner oide file No.HyG0663742G2524llntud 19.03.2024_ as ilbgal, arbitrary anrl zuithout jurisdiction and consequently to direct the Respondents to enteriain the passport application _ztide^{fb No.HyG066374262524dnted 19.03.2024of the} peti,tioncr for a peiod of (10) years LI/s. 70 of passport Act, 7967 and under Rule 12 of passport Rules, 19g0 u,ithout reference to tht Cyiryinal proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C No.6tB of 20_2_0 on the f.le of the Honouiable ludicial First Clnss Magistrate at Alair and also Gazette Notif cation issued by the^"Central Cotternment ztide GSR No.SZ0 (E) dnted 25.0g.1993.,,

3 Brief facts in this writ petiLion are that petitioner being an agriculhrrist was cultivating his land in Sy.No.27 situated at Sarvapally Village, Atmakur Mandal and the petitioner for issuance of normal passport made an application before the respondent authorities and an appointment was given to petitioner to approach passport Seva Kendra, Begumpet, Hyderabacl, thus petitioner had approached the said office on 29.70.2024, and submitted all the required documents. Thereafter, respondent No.2 conducted enquiry and basing on the police verification report, issued letter dated 23.03.2024, stating

,",

,/

..)..

i^-r n.olved^{in Cr.No.61 of 2020under Sectiorr417' 341'427 '} that petitiont't ' 5 \tmakur vide CC.No'678 of 2020' on the file of Judicial 326,504 IPtl^o First Class^{]vl ir,ljst:ate at Alair and directedthe petitic ne : to submit} explanatiorr^{',v 1l in r period of 30 days Furthercase of the pel tioner is that} one T.RarL^{lR :L:iclvneighborof petitioner' withoutpernllssi :u fromthe} concerned^{J'al:; ldar was trying to dug bore well' by vioiating WALTAact'} Hence, th,: 1^{t litioner on 06 05 2020, made a compiaintal rd requested} Tahsitdar,^{:\t r, rkur Mandal, Yadadri-BhuvanagiriDistrir:t tt' takeaclion'} Thereafter,^{r:r ,1 01j 2020,I Rarn Reddy' lodged a false coinple'int beforethe} P.S, Atrnakllr^{,l lJ :ln such complaint,the SHo,P'S. Atmakur,registeredan} FIR No.6.l^{L ,[ I ]l(l daterl 25 05 2020 and a charge5hg13flirle il C No'678 of} 2020 was lilt't^{r tt t rc file of} ludicial^{First CiassMagistrateat Alirir'}

Lcalrr'^{,:ounselfor the petitioner submits that the s;tid caseis civil in} natule and^{f rrlrr:-submitsthat the petitionerhas no intentir)nto supPress} the mater i.rl^{i - frrrrnation rn} PassPort^{application and furth':rr;ubmittedthat} due to ili^{hrall'r tle} Petitioner^{could not make explanatiorLon lhe letter dated} 23.03.2021 b:i^{rre the respond.ent No.2and pray this Coult to grantliberty to} the petitiolt r^{o rtake such explanation and further pray tlrisCourtto direct} the respor,,J^{I r} t^{a uthorities to consider the same and issu e t)assPortto the} petrtroner

5 Leanr^,l cotrnsel appearing^{for respondents did not disp ute the same}

/

l

3::

Recording the submission made by learned counsel appearing on either side' this writ petition is disposed of with a riberty to the petitioner to submit explanation to the letter dated 23.03.2024, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such explanatiory the respondent authorities are directed to dispose the same and pass appropriate orders shictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of petitioner,s explanation and communicate the same to pctitioner.

Accorclingty, thc writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shal stand croscd. No costs.

SD/. T. JAYASREE STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

To

SECTION OFFICER

1 The S ecre tary, Union of lndia, Ministry of External

The SectioR n,Patiala House Annexe Govemment of t ndia atrs,New CTV Delhi.Division , TV-1 Secunegional derabad.Passport Office, D.No.8-2-215 to 219, Kummarguda.

3 One C 4 One C C to SRl. G. ARUN KUMAR, Advocate IoPUC 5. Two CD C Copiesto tl4s. NVR RAJYA LAKS HMI, Advocate [OPUC] BM GJP

CHL

HIGH COUIIT

DATED:1 Alffil20Zs

ORDER

t
iiI o
,+
a
.:'

WP.No.7232 of ZOZ1

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CI]STS

@ffis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Action of Respondent No.2 (Regional Passport Office) in not issuing the passport to the petitioner vide file No. HyG066374262524 dated 19.03.2024 (following police verification disclosing pending criminal proceedings C.C. No.678 of 2020 and Gazette Notification GSR No.570(E) dated 25.08.1993), declared by the petitioner to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.¶15
Regional Passport Office (Respondent No.2) · 19.03.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied for issuance of a normal passport; an appointment was given to approach the Passport Seva Kendra, Begumpet, Hyderabad, which he approached (printed as 29.70.2024, apparently 29.10.2024) and submitted all required documents.¶28
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry and, basing on the police verification report, issued a letter dated 23.03.2024 stating that the petitioner was involved in Cr. No.61 of 2020 (Ss.417, 341, 427, 326, 504 IPC), prosecuted as C.C. No.678 of 2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Alair, and directed him to submit an explanation within 30 days.¶28
Prior proceeding
Origin of the criminal proceedings: on 06.05.2020 the petitioner complained to the Tahsildar, Atmakur Mandal (Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District) that neighbour T. Ram Reddy was digging a bore well without permission in violation of the WALTA Act; a (false) complaint by T. Ram Reddy followed, on which the SHO, P.S. Atmakur registered FIR/Cr. No.61 of 2020 dated 25.05.2020, and a chargesheet was filed in C.C. No.678 of 2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Alair, where proceedings remain pending.¶32
Prior proceeding
Petitioner did not furnish the explanation sought by the letter dated 23.03.2024, pleading ill health; counsel submitted the case was civil in nature and that the petitioner had no intention to suppress material information, praying for liberty to submit the explanation and for directions to the passport authorities to consider it and issue the passport.¶33