Matta Sai Kumar Goud Vs The Union of India — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Matta Sai Kumar Goud Vs The Union of India — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the learned writ court for modification or review of the impugned order; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to renewal of his passport for ten years instead of the one-year permitted travel period fixed by the learned writ court's order in W.P. No. 536 of 2026.

Court's answer

The grievance that the learned writ court confined the relief for renewal of the passport to one year instead of ten years ought to have been canvassed before the learned writ court or could be raised by way of a review application; it was not entertained in the writ appeal.

Ratio / Principle

Leave was granted to the appellant to withdraw the writ appeal with liberty to approach the learned writ court for modification or review of the impugned order; the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No. 175 of 2026 (under clause 15 of the Letters Patent), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Hon'ble Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Hon'ble Sri Justice G.M. Mohiuddin), decided 13.02.2026. Matta Sai Kumar Goud appealed against the learned writ court's order dated 08.01.2026 in W.P. No. 536 of 2026, by which - considering the coordinate Bench's judgment in W.P.No.24690 of 2025 (dated 03.09.2025) - Respondent No.2 (Regional Passport Officer) was directed to issue/renew his passport subject to conditions: an undertaking with affidavit in pending C.C.No.8266 of 2020 (XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally) not to leave India during pendency, a fresh application to the Passport Authority, consideration under the Passport Rules, 1967, and a permitted travel period of one year with an undertaking not to overstay and to surrender the passport on return to India. Aggrieved that renewal was confined to one year instead of ten years, the appellant, on counsel's request, was granted leave to withdraw; the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the learned writ court for modification or review of the impugned order; no order as to costs.

[³⁴⁸⁸ I

\

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

FRTDAY HE THIRTEENTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE THE CHTEF JUSTICE^{APARESH KUMAR SINGH} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.^MOHIUDDIN

WRIT APPEAL 17s OF 2026

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters^{PatentPreferredAgainstOrder} Dated OB1O112026 Passed in WP. No^{536 of 2026 on the file of the High Court.}

Between:

Matta Sai Kumar Goud, S/o. Krishna Goud^{Matta, aged about 31} -years, Occ. Private Employee,^{R/o.H.No.2-4-11313014,South SwaroopNagar,} Uppal, fi/edchal, Hyderabad^- 500039.

...APPELLANT

AND

1 The Union of tndia, Rep. by the Secretary,^{Ministry of ExternalAffairs, New} Delhi -110011.

2 The Regional Passport Officer, Regional^{Passpg(_Q{1ce.,-H.yderabad,D. No} 8-2-21{to Zl9, Kummarguda,^{Secunderabad- 500003, Telangana}

3 Smt. Pinamalla Madhuri, Wo.l/latta^{Sai Kumar Goud, aged about30 years,} Occ. housewife, R/o. H .No.2-4-240I^{Al 1, NehruNagar,Amberpet.Kachiguda,} Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI^{MUTHYALAMURALIDHAR}

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and^{2: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO} Deputy Solicitor General^{of lndia}

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:---

The Court Delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

! I:

\

TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE I-ION'I}I,E T'IIE^(-TIII]I.' J IISTICE SRI APAIIESH KUMAR STNGFI

ANI)

TITI.] HON'BLE SRI JTJS'I'ICE G.M.}IO[IIUDDIN

WtTI-t AI'PTlA No.l75 of2026

Dated: 13.02.2026

Betwecn:

Matta liai Kumar Goud

...Appellant

:rntl

fhe Urrion of lndia. Rep. b'u the Secretarr,. Ministr'1, of Extcrnal AfiairsNew Delhi - ll00l I, and 2 c,thers.

... Respondents

JUDGMEN'f :

Learned counsel Sri Mutlala Muraliclhar appears for the appellant.

Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Dcpur1,. Solicitor General of India,

appearl lbr respondents No.l and 2.

The appellant preferred the instant appeal challenging the order

dated^r)8.01 .2026 passed by the learned r.vrir court in w.p.No.536 of

2026 preferred by hirn.

,;T i.i

2

\

\

'the learned writ courl disposed ol the r,vrit petition in the

follorving terrns:

"5. llc that as it rnay, corrsidering the judgrncut of the coordinate Benclr o{'this Court in W.P.No.24690 of 2025, dated 03.09.2025. and tlre purpose for ulriclr the passport is being requested by the petitioner. this Cotrrt dirccts the resporrclcrrt No.2 to issue the passporl to the petiticlrrer <lrr the lilllorvirrg conclitiorrs:

i) Thc petitiorrer hereirr slrall subrnit an undertakins along with arr al'fidavit irr C.C.No.8266 of 2020, pending on tlre filc ol' learncd XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ill.derabad at Narrrpally.. stating that he shall not lcave lrrdia during penderrcy ol'the said C.C., without pcrnrissiorr rrf tlrc Courl arrd tlrat lre slrall cooperate with trial Cclurl irr ccrrrcludinq tlrc proceedirrgs irr the said C.C:

ii) On Iilirtg such arr undertaking as rvell as affidavit. the trial Courr shall issue a ceftified copy of the sarnc rvithirr two (2) wecks therefronr;

iii)'llrc petitioner herein shall subrnit an applicatiorr afi'esh along rvith certified copy of this order as well as tlre aloresaid urrderlakin-e lrefore the Passport Officer/ Authority corrcerned lbr rcrrerving tlre passport:

iv) Orr filing such an application, the Passport Ofllceri Authority shall consider the same afieslr in the liglrt of the obscrvatiorrs rnade by this Court herein as well as the contents of the urrdcrtaking given by the petitioner fol' retter.vinq the passporl, in accordarrce r.r'ith lar.v, withitt three (03) *'eeks fionr tlre clate of said application;

v) Resporrdent No.2 shall consider the Passport t{ulcs, 1967 rrlrile corrsidcrirrg the application for renewing oltlre passport to the petitiorrer;

vi)^.l'lre corrpeterlt authority shall specify the pennissiorr period of'one year for the petitioner to renew the passport for travelling abroad, and also obtain appropriate undertaking lrom the petitioner stating that the petitioner shall not overstay the pcrnritted period and shall surrender the passport upou return to lndia.

vii) An1, other condition as deemed appropriate by the trial Court.

I t1/

Accordingll,, tlre Writ Petition is disposed of. Tlrere shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions. if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed."

J

The' appellant is aggrieved, as the learned writ court has confined

the relief for renewal of the passport for only one year instead of ten

years

This issue either ought to have been canvasscd before Lhe learned r,vrit court or could be raised by way ol'a review application by the appellant.

Leirrned counsel for the appcllant, therefbre, sceks leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the learned writ court for rnodificat:on or revielv of the impugned order

Litrerty, as prayed for, is grantcd and the appeal is disrnissed as

withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, Advocate [OpUC]

2 one cc to sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy soricitor Generar of rndia topucl 3 Two CD Copies

rj BSwq

//

HIGH CIOURT

DATED,i13lO2l2026

JUDGMENT

WA.No. 175 of 2026

r
ThiE S
Y
,,)
(J
2 7 F[8 202[

'

DISMIS:SING THE WRIT APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN WITHOIJT COSTS

">Ll>l>("

I^i,t