HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Etela Rajendar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
WP/8747/2024
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:
7) Crime No.315/2021 CC.No.466/2022 at Spl.JFCM Excise Court, Hyd., 8) Crime No.316/2021 CC.No.470/2022 at Spl.JFCM Excise Court, Hyd., 9) Crime No.329/2021 at Spl.JFCM Excise Court, Hyd., 10) Crime No.316/2021 Case is PT for app of Accused at Spl.JFCM Excise Court, Hyd., 11) Crime No.30/2013 The case was prosecution withdrawal U/sec.321 Cr.p.c on 09/10/2020 vide Spl SC No.84/2018 in Hon'ble Spl Sessions Court, Nampally., 12)Crime No.222/2021 For summons at Hon'ble JMFC Courts, Karimnagar, 13) Crime No.356/2021 PT Vide CC No.470/22 at 11 Addl.JFCM Huzurabad, 14) Crime No.252/2012 the Case was prosecution withdrawal on 04-10- 2017 by the Hon'ble JFCM Rlys KZJ court vide CC No.78/2017 vide G.O.R.T.No.558 Law., 15) Crime No.251/2012, the Case was prosecution withdrawal on 04-10-2017 by the Hon'ble JFCM Rlys KZJ court vide CC No.77/2017 vide G.O.R.T.No.558 Law., as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act 1967 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to renew petitioner's Passport bearing No.Z2846452 for 10 years pursuant to the application No.HYDO76220782724 dated 02-02-2024 without reference to the said criminal cases..”.
2. It is the case of petitioner that he is an Ex-MLA and he holds Indian Passport bearing No.Z2846452, which is valid upto 15.06.2024. It is further case of the petitioner that to renew his passport, he submitted an application No.HYD076220782724, dated 02.02.2024 before the respondent No.2 through online but the respondent No.2, instead of renewing the passport, issued a letter dated 07.02.2024 and refused to renew the passport on the ground that an adverse police verification report was received against the petitioner about his involvement in the following cases:
3. Considered the rival submissions of respective counsel and perused the record.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cases registered against the petitioner relate to election offences and mere pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny renewal of passport to the petitioner and the said action of the respondents is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court held that “passport authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of criminal case and directed the passport authority
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.