B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in retaining the passport of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a consequential direction to the respondent to release the passport bearing No. 31575/86 after renewing the same.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in this case, admittedly, is involved in more than one criminal case. Bail is stated to have been granted to him. However, in Cr. No. 67/1992 the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad passed an order granting bail to the petitioner on 1-8-1992 on condition of the petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 with two sureties for a like sum each on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the Police, C. C. S. to assist in completing the investigation and the petitioner should surrender his passport before the Court. The passport is surrendered by the petitioner pursuant to the said order passed by the Court. However, the said order passed by the learned Magistrate is modified by this Court by an order D/- 31-3-1995 in Crl. Petition No. 1199/95 directing the release of the passport in favour of the petitioner on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the lower Court. This Court further directed that in case the petitioner wants to leave India he has to take permission of the learned Magistrate and also bring to the notice of the Passport authority that the prosecution is pending against him. On depositing the amount, the passport is already released to the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE petitioner once again submitted the passport to the respondent for adding visa leaves to the passport and the same is received by the respondents on 17-4-1995. The respondent having received the passport did not release the same in favour of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. The complaint in the instant writ petition is that the respondent herein having received the passport did not take any decision in the matter and return the same. No order is communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in Crl. Petition No. 1199/95 D/- 28-7-1995 directing the passport to be released in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent has no jurisdiction whatsoever to retain the passport. On account of the impugned action of the respondent, the petitioner is not in a position to leave the Country, even if the Court grants permission to leave the Country. The action of the respondent, according to the petitioner, is not only illegal and arbitrary but violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14, 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the respondent has passed orders impounding his passport under Sec. 10 (3) (e) of the Passport Act, 1967 as the petitioner is facing number of criminal cases relating to cheating in a Court of law. The respondent is alleged to have received request from not only the Police but also from the State Bank of India to impound the passport of the petitioner, as he is habitually involving in criminal cases. It is stated that the petitioner did not obtain any order from the learned Magistrate permitting him to leave the Country. The petitioner, according to the respondent did not make any request for release of the passport setting out the details as to what happened pursuant to the order passed in Crl. Petition No. 1199/1995. It is specifically stated that the respondent has not received any direction whatsoever either from this Court in the said Criminal petition or from the Metropolitan Magistrate Court. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to prefer an appeal before the appella

Click Here to Read the rest of this document