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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 44391

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Manaswini Chowdary Kaka – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
WP/25259/2024



HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25259 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not passing on the petitioner’s explanation, dated 09.07.2024 to the show- cause notice, dated 25.06.2024 and orally demanding the petitioner to surrender the passport before respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the explanation of the petitioner, dated 09.07.2024 without seizing the passport No.Y3438075…”

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the holder of passport bearing No.Y3438075 and the same was valid upto 19.12.2024. It is the further case of the petitioner that she has submitted an application in File No.HY2076639739324, dated 11.06.2024 seeking for renewal of passport before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has not renewed the passport stating that the petitioner has involved in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide Letter Ref.No.SCN/ 318335765/24, dated 25.06.2024. Soon after receipt of the said letter, the petitioner has submitted an explanation, dated 09.07.2024 stating that she has not suppressed any material information while making application for renewal of her passport and due to inadvertence she has not mentioned the pendency of the criminal case registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the said case is not having any impact for renewal of the passport in terms of the provisions of the Passports Act,1967 and requested to renew her passport and release the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the explanation, dated 09.07.2024 the respondents have not passed any order nor renew her passport.

3. Considered the submissions of Sri M.Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.Sashi Kiran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The case of the petitioner is that she has made an application seeking renewal of her passport bearing No.Y3438075 in File No.HY2076639739324, dated 11.06.2024 and a show-cause notice vide Ref.No. SCN/ 318335765/24, dated 25.06.2024 was issued to the petitioner. Admittedly, a criminal case, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881, was pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted her explanation, dated 09.07.2024 stating that the said fact was not mentioned due to inadvertence and requested the respondents to renew/release her passport. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner in File No.HY2076639739324, dated 11.06.2024, seeking renewal of the passport of the petitioner duly taking into consideration of the explanation, dated 09.07.2024 submitted by the petitioner. If the explanation/ representation, dated 09.07.2024 is not available on record, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal/reissue of her passport, within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter, following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and the Rules made thereunder.

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J

12.09.2024 gkv

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top