IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Rehana Begum, D/o (Late) N.M.D. Mustafa – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Information Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Commission, Mangalagiri, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 20597 of 2025
Decided on : 14-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's plea for leave (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s qualifications and application process (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. reason for leave denial related to workload (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. counter-arguments presented by respondents (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. right to travel as a fundamental freedom (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. supreme court's stance on travel rights (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. invalidity of denial reasons against travel rights (Para 19) |
| 8. court’s directive and conclusion (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
1. Heard Sri S.V. Maruthi Sankar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T. Balaswami, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri P. Ravikanth, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader for Government Administration.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief :
‘‘It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate order, more particularly, one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.1 bearing R.C.NO. 19180/APIC/Estt./2025 dated 24.07.2025 whereby the application of the Petitioner seeking leave for the purpose of attending an International Visitor Leadership Program in U.S.A was rejected as being illegal, arbitrary, violative to principles of naturaljustice and Article 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution and consequently, direct the Respondents to grant the sanctioned leave to the Petitioner to attend the said program for the period 25.08.2025 to 13.09.2025 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”
3. The Writ Petitioner is working as State Information Commissioner. She had applied for availing Casual Leave for attending a programme in the United States of America. It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner is originally a Seasoned Media Professional with over two decades of experience on frontline journalism across the Country and abroad including coverage of conflict zones, political and humanitarian disasters. She has been invited to a prestigious International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP), sponsored by United States Department of State in recognition of her distinguished professional background.
4. It is stated in Para-4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition regards the benefits that the Writ Petitioner would have by attending the as International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP). The Writ Petitioner has also served as Senior Electron'"' Media Journalist and covered national and international events such as 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Pulwama incident, Kargil conflict and Turkey Earthquake etc.,, The Writ Petitioner has also interviewed several noted Leaders in India.
5. An invite was received by the Writ Petitioner with regard to International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP) in the month of February, 2025 for the to be conducted from 10.03.2025 to 28.03.2025. The Writ programme Petitioner made a request to this effect on 25.02.2025. On 24.02.2025, the General Administrative Department, vide G.O.Rt.No.394 dated 24.02.2025, has accorded permission to the Writ Petitioner for the foreign visit to U.S.A for participation from 10.03.2025 to 28.02.2025. However, the Official Respondent No.1 had rejected the request of the Writ Petitioner by passing a Speaking Order on 04.03.2025. On 04.07.2025, the Writ Petitioner has once again made a Representation for sanction of Earned Leave from 22.08.2025 to 15.09.2025. The Writ Petitioner has also submitted several reminders to the Respondent No.1 on 10.07.2025, 14.07.2025, 18.07.2025. Due to inaction on the part of the Respondent No.1, the Writ Petitioner has filed W.P.No.19267 of 2025. While the said Writ Petition was pending challenging the inaction on the part of the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 had passed Order on 24.07.2025. For this reason, the said W.P.No. 19267 of 2025 was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition challenging the Order passed by the Respondent No.
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LTD, Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Union of India \/s. Jyothi Prakash Mitter
State of Maharastra and Another \/s, Lok Shikshan Sansatha and others
Andhra Cements Ltd. Versus Government of A. P. and others
Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Vs. Union of India
Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer New Delhi and Others
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right that cannot be infringed without lawful justification, and administrative exigencies do not supersede this right.
Inaction of authorities in not communicating a decision within a reasonable time is illegal and unsustainable. Suspension cannot deprive an individual's liberty to travel abroad.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed by the pendency of departmental proceedings without due process.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be restricted without due process.
If a pure administrative circular/executive instruction is in conflict with certain rules and regulations, former would be bad in law.
The right to travel abroad is not a fundamental right; denial for non-essential travel does not violate legal provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.