Boya Ramesh Vs Regional Passport Office

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 an order direction or writ, more particularity one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing No. K4773592 without reference to the crime case against the petitioner in the interest of justice and declare the action of the respondent No. 1 in not renewing the passport of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural^justice and against the provisions of the Passport Act.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

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 respondent No. 1 to renew the passport bearing No. K4773592 belonging to the petitioner forthwith enabling the petitioner to travel to Abu Dhabi

¶18

to look after the grandchird of the petitioner pending disposar of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS 99y1:"t^{forthe Respondents:SRt B.NARAS|MHA} SHARMA, ADDL. SOL|C|TOR GENERAL /sRl cADr PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. soLrGrroR GENERAL op rNora-

¶20

W.P.NO: 150 OF 2025

¶21

Between:

¶22

[9n{al !a9^{Adi, S/o Adi MuthyamRao,Aged} about 55 years, Occ. Business, No 2-1o-1942. Bhagya Nagar, Karimnagai farlrnrgr'rbistriit- SOsOOi.' -*'

¶23

...PET|T|ONER AND

¶24

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Extemal Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi.

¶25

2 J!9^{Regional Passport Officer, Regional passport} ffice, D.No.B-2_21 Sto 2 1 9, N e a r P ra s h a n i T h ea t re, (u m ni arg ud al S-icu nO-" i, o, a _o e

¶26

Petition under Articre 226 ot the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to decrare the action of the Respondent No.2 in not renewing the passport services to the petitioner vide proceedings Letter No. scN/31 6533041r23 (Fite No No. Hy7075 B}4zsz323) dated 18-12-2023 on account of pendency of crime No. 404 of 2o2o on the file of the Karimnagar Rural police station registered for offences punishable u/s 323, 427, 44g,506 of lpc as illegal, high handed and arbitrary apart from being in vioration of the rights of the Petitioner under Articre 14, 19 and 2't of the constitution of rndia and consequenfly set-a-side the proceedings dated 1g-12-2023 and direct the Respondent No.2 to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing No.LS404250 for the period of .r0 ten years.

¶27

IANO: 1c)F 25

¶28

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 preased to

¶29

3-

¶30

suspend the impugned proceedings Letter Ref.No. scN/316533041123 daled 1812'2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS BHUSARAPU Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL /SRl cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF tNDtA

¶32

W.P.NO: 180 OF 2025

¶33

Between:

¶34

Qgla livgpalatha,^{Wo Boya Ramesh Age. 60 yearsOcc. HousewifeRt/o} SRT - 465/A, Sanathnagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad-, Telangana 5O0OlB.

¶35

...PET|TIONER AND

¶36

Regional Passp_ort- O-ffice' Hyderabad D.No.8-2-215 to 21g, Kummarguda, Secunderabad 500003, Teldngana.

¶37

The U_nion of lndia, through Secretary Ministry of External Affairs South Block New Delhi

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing No. K6422004 without reference to the crime case against the petitioner in the interest of justice and declare the action of the respondent No.1 in not renewing the passport of the petitioner on the-ground of pendency of criminal case as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the Passport Act.

¶40

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶41

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 respondent No. 1 to renew the passport bearing No. K6422004 belonging to the petitioner forthwith enabling the petitioner to travel to Abu Dhabi to look after the grandchild of the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶42

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL /SRl GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶44

W.P.NO: 37183 OF 2024

¶45

Between:

¶46

Kunchala Yedukondalu, S/o. Narsimha Kunchala, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, Fi.io. H. No.11-4-322111 , Flat No.401, Sevenhills Enclave, chitkalguda Secunderabad, Hyderabad ...pETt,oNER AND

¶47

The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary Ministry of Extemal affairs New Delhi

¶48

The Regional Passport officer, Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad

¶49

,..RESPONDENTS

¶50

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 inaction of the 2nd Respondent in considering the passport application No.HY1076848780'124 of the^'Petitioner vide passport No. M2369252 for renewal as Arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violation of Article^'14, 19 and 21 of constitution of lndia and the provisions of the Passport Rules, 1980 consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to renew the passport application No.HY1076848780124 of the Petitioner vide passport No. M2369252.

¶51

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶52

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 2nd Respondent to renew the passport application No.HY1076848780124 vide passport No. M2369252 of the Petitioner herein, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner: SR! MYKALA TITUS FINNY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL /SRl cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR,GENERAL OF tNDtA

¶54

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶55

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.92 15() 180 0F 2025 AND 371a3 of 2o24

¶56

COMMON ORDER:

¶57

Since the issue involved in all these Writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶58

Heard iearned Counsel for petitioners, Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents and perused the record.

¶59

It is the common case of the petitioners that the petitioners in all rhese Writ Petitions have been holding passport and on its expiry had approached the respondent authorities and sought for its renewal by submitting an application; and that inspite of the petitioners submitting the application, their passports are not being renewed.

¶60

It is also the further case of ttre petitioners that the respondents on the other hand have issued notices seeking clarification whereby the petitioners were called upon to submit their expianation as to why renewal of passport should not be denied on ttre ground of pending Criminai Cases, which action it

¶61

7

¶62

is contended^{is highlyiliegal, arbitrary and also contraryto the} decision of the^{HonbleSupreme Court in the case of Vangala} Ka.sturi Rangacharyulu^{o. Central Buteau of Inuestigationl'}

¶63

Petitioners further^{contendthat this Court in Intra Court} Appeai vide^{W.A. No.263 of 2024 by orderdate'dlO 'O4 '2024} while examining^{the conditionsimposed by the learned Single} Judge in^{W.P. No.674B of 2024 directing the respondentsto} renew the^{passport,had held the following conditionsstated to} be by no stretch^{of imagination to be unreasonable which are as}

¶64

under:

¶65

The petitioner herein^{shatlsubmit an undertaking alongwith an} affidavit in Crime^{No.22 of 2023 of Karamchedu P'S before the} competent Court^{stating that he will not leaveIndiaduring} pendency of the^{said case without permission 01'theCourtand} that he will^{co-operate with trialCourt inconcluding the} proceedings in^{the saidcase;}

¶66

11 On hling such^{an undertakingas well as aflidavit, the trial Court} shall issue a^{certihed copyof the samewithintwo (02)weeks} therefrom;

¶67

r11. The petitioner^{herein shallsubmitcertifiedcopy of aforesaid} undertaking^{beforethe Respondent-Passport Oflicer for renewa-lof} his passport;

¶68

lv The Respondent-Passport^{Officershall considerthe application of} the petitioner^{dared O2.Q2.2O23,seeking renewalof petitioner's}

¶69

1 Live Larv 2021 SC 533 = 2O2O Criminal^{l'aw JournalSC572}

¶70

3

¶71

passport in the li8ht of^{the observationsmade by this Court} herein as wett as the^{contentsof the undertaking givenby the} petitioner in accordance^{with law;}

¶72

On renewal of the^{Passport,the petitioner herein shall deposit the} original renewed^{Passportbeforethe trial Courtin Crime No22 of} 2023 of Karamchedu^{P.S., and}

¶73

However, liberty is^{granted to the petitionerherein to filean} application before the^{trial Courtseeking permission to trav€1} abroad and it is^{for the trial Court to consider the same in} accordance to^[aw."

¶74

It is also contended^{that inspite of this Court passing the} orders in various Writ^{Petitions,the respondentauthorities} continue to issue^{a cryptic communicationin the form of notice} seeking clarification^{as to pendencyof the CriminalCase being} shown as reason for^{non-considerationof the applicationfor} which reason the^{petitionersare compelled to approach this} Court.

¶75

7 . Per contra, learned^{Additional Solicitor General who had} appeared in the matter^{at the rcquest of this Courton behalf of} the iearned Standing Counsel^{appearingonbehaif of} respondents, by drawing attention^{of this Courtto Section6(2)(f)} of Passport Act, 1967^{(for short 'the Act') would submit that the} aforesaid provision confers^{power on the authorities to refuse} issue of a^passport or travel^document.

¶76

4

¶77

Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that Section 22 of the Act confers power on the Central Government to exempt anv person or class of persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act; and that in exercise of such por"{.er conferred, Cential Government had issued notification vide G.S.R. No.S7O(E) dated 25.08.1993 whereby certain conditions have been prescribed for granting exemption to citizens against whom the offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before the Criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India.

¶78

Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that since the exemption granted under the aforesaid notiFrcation issued by the Central Government is subject to condition precedent, the same cannot be considered as a blanket exemption being granted for renewal/reissue of Passport.

¶79

i0. i have taken note ofthe respective conditions urged.

¶80

1i. Though Section 6(Z)(0 of the Act confers power on the Passport Authority to refuse to issue Passport, it is to be noted that in all the present Writ Petitions the petitioners are not seeking for issue of Passport for the first time, but are al1

¶81

/

¶82

5

¶83

seeking^{renewal/reissue of the Passport alreadyissued earlier} and thus, they stand^{on a different footingthan the} first^time applicants.

¶84

Further,^{the respondentauthority while consideringthe} application^{submitted by the petitionersherein for reissue of} Passport have issued letter^seeking clarification as to^the pendency of the Criminai^{Case which} is^stated to^{have been} registered/^{pending beforethe concerned authority/Courtfor the} authorities^to consider^{the reissue of the Passport.}

¶85

Though^{the respondentswhile seekingclarificationhave} only mentioned the^pendency ol^{the CriminaiCase registered} against them with the^police authority/pending^{before the} concerned Court^{and have sought for clarification} as to^the stage of the^case,however did not mention therein^the conditions^{which the petitioners are required to comply in} terms of notification utde GSR^No.570(E) dated 25.09.1993 to^get the passport reissued.

¶86

If only the authorities while issuing the 'notice of clarification' to the applicants on the aspect of^pendency of the cases, had specified the^conditions which they are required to comply if a Criminal^Case is^pending for them to comply as

I

I _*-

6

specified in the^{GSR No.570{E)and also the conditionsimposed} by this Court in^{Writ Appeal No.263 of 2024 as extrzrcted above'} the applicants/^{petitioners herein could have subrnitted their} explanation comprehensively^{in one go with all the required} information to enable^{the authoritiesto consider the application} for reissue of PassPort.

¶91

Instead, the^{respondent authoritiesby issutng notlce ln a} cryptic manner^{have soughtfor clariircation from the applicants} on pending Criminal^{Casewithout indicating therein the further} compliance^{required to be undertaken by them at their end, has} resulted in applicants^{approachingthis Court by fi1ing the} present Writ Petitions^{for getting direction issued tothe} concerned authorities^{to considertheir applicationssubjectto} compiying with the^{conditions mentioned in the order dated} 1O.O4.2O24 in W.A.^{No.263 of 2024. This approach on the part} of the respondent^{authorities in the considered view of this} Court has resulted^{in this Court being floodedwith number of} Writ Petitions being^{hled by each of such applicantsand this} Court issuing more^{or iess same direction in every case' which} could have been^{avoidedif only the respondentauthorities while} issuing notice seeking clarification^{have speciliedtLLe conditions} to be complied with as detailed by this Court in order in W.A.

¶92

7

¶93

No.263 of 2024 and also in the Notification issued by the Central Government uide C.S.R. No.570(E) dated 25.08. 1993.

¶94

However, the respondents for the reasons best known to Ihem^{have neither} chose to^{follow the orders of this Court nor} conditions imposed ulde G.S.R. No.570 issued in the^year 1993 while seeking clarification.

¶95

In view of the above, in the facts of the^present case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should be directed to comply with the condition Nos.1 to 6 as extracted hereinabove by submitting the explanation/ further explanation to the clarification notice to enable the authorities to consider petitioners application for reissue ol the Passport.

¶96

Further, the respondents are hereby directed that hereafter while issuing clarification notice, should also indicate therein the conditions which the appiicants are required to comply while submitting their explanation to the clarification notice in the event of any Criminal Case is filed/ pending consideration before the Criminal Court, to enable the authorities to consider the explanation submitted while taking a decision either to reissue or refuse to issue Passport by passing

¶97

8

¶98

a reasoned^{order enablingthe applicants to avail the remed5'of}

¶99

Appeal Provided^{under the Act'}

¶100

i9. Subject to^{the aboveobservationand direction'theseWrit}

¶101

Petitions^{arc disposed of. No costs'}

¶102

As a sequel,^{miscelianeous petitionspendingif any shall}