IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 3605 OF 2026

21.04.2026 Between:

Tikkavarapu Venkatram Reddy ….. Petitioner And Union of India, Through Ministry of External Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi & others ….. Respondents

O R D E R:

The case of petitioner is that L&T Finance Limited sanctioned Rs.25 crores to Deccan Chronicle Holding Ltd. under loan agreement dated 13.05.2011, for which he executed a personal guarantee. The company was admitted into CIRP on 19.07.2017 and a Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT on 03.06.2019 under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, concluding the CIRP. It is stated, L&T Finance Limited initiated proceedings against Petitioner as Personal Guarantor by demand notice dated 20.01.2020 and filing CP(IB) No. 88/95/HDB/2021 before the NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, which was admitted on 24.06.2022. Petitioner challenged the same before the NCLAT, where the Appeal is pending and reserved for judgment for over one year without interim protection.

1.1. It is stated, as no repayment plan was submitted, Respondent No.3 disposed of CP(IB) No. 88/95/HDB/2021 and filed IA (IBC) 534/2025 in CP(IB) No. 88 of 2021 under Section 123 to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against Petitioner. During pendency of Appeal, the NCLT, Hyderabad Bench by order dated 12.11.2024 permitted initiation of bankruptcy proceedings in IA (IBC) 534/2025 and by order dated 19.12.2025, declared Petitioner as bankrupt and appointed a Bankruptcy Trustee, which is under challenge before the NCLAT.

1.2. Petitioner is therefore, stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 39689 of 2025 challenging the orders dated 12.11.2024 and 19.12.2025 on jurisdictional grounds, which was dismissed on 24.12.2025 due to pendency of matters before NCLAT. Against the said order, SLP (C) No. 3165 of 2026 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein notice was issued on 23.01.2026 and the matter is pending. During pendency of the said case, Respondent No.3 addressed letter dated 28.01.2026 to Respondent No.2 seeking restraint/suspension of Petitioner’s international travel until completion of bankruptcy proceedings or further orders of the NCLT, Hyderabad.

1.3. It is stated, Respondent No.3 issued another letter dated 02.02.2026 to Respondent No.2 seeking similar restraint upon discovering another passport bearing No. W2970396 from CIBIL report. These communications dated 28.01.2026 and 02.02.2026 were issued by Respondent No.3 in capacity as Bankruptcy Trustee under the Code and have statutory flavour affecting Petitioner’s personal liberty under Article 21, making the Writ Petition maintainable. According to petitioner, Respondent No.3 has no power to restrain or suspend international travel of Petitioner, and the Code being a complete Code does not confer such authority on the Bankruptcy Trustee. 1.4. Reliance on Section 141(1)(f) of the Code is misconceived, as even a bankrupt is permitted to travel abroad with permission of Adjudicating Authority, and impounding passport defeats the object of the provision. Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides exhaustive grounds for impounding passport, and insolvency or bankruptcy is not one of them. Therefore, the impugned communications are legally unsustainable. Under Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 for LOCs, approval of specified authorities is mandatory, which was not obtained in the present case. It is stated further, as per the law laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1, right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot be curtailed except by procedure established by law. In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 3802 of 2019, decided on 09.04.2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized right to travel abroad as a basic human right. In Kent v. Dulles (357 US 116, decided on 16.06.1958), it was held that right to travel is part of liberty