SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2063

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K SREENIVASA REDDY
BIJJAM RAJASEKHAR REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 4054/2026



2026:APHC:6396 APHC010008672026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.4054 OF 2026 Between:

Bijjam Rajasekhar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The Union of India and others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MUSUDI BABJI Counsel for the Respondents:

1. GP FOR HOME

2.

The Court made the following ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

2. The petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.P3051489 on 17.06.2016 and the same will expire on 16.06.2026. He made an online application on 12.08.2025 for renewal of his passport. On that, 4th respondent issued a letter in Ref.No.SCN/1051915661/25, dated 01.11.2025 calling upon the petitioner to provide suitable explanation within 30 days with reference to receipt of an adverse police verification report as he is involved in Crime No.62 of 2024 of Allagadda Town Police Station, Nandyala district, registered for the offence punishable under section 420 read with 34 IPC, which was taken on file as CC No.398 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that mere pendency of a criminal case is no ground to deny the issuance of a passport.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that C.C.No.398 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda is pending against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Court and make an application.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the jurisdictional Court and file an application.

6. Given the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of both the learned counsel, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court and file an appropriate application. If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon, keeping in view Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

Date:12.02.2026 Nsr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.4054 of 2026 Date:12.02.2026 Nsr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top