Telangana High Court
Ravi Kumar Thota vs The Union Of India on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.785 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Y.Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant
and Ms. Anjali Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
12.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ
Petition No.24743 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ
petitioner.
3. On a query by the Court as to why appellant has
filed the appeal though the order of the learned Single Judge
is in favour of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the direction of the learned Single Judge that if
the appellant wants to travel abroad, he has to obtain
permission from the Court concerned in Crime No.72 of 2020
is adverse to him.
2 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.785 of 2022
4. We find from the material papers that appellant is
an engineering graduate and aspires for higher studies
abroad. When he applied for a passport, the same was
refused on the ground of pendency of Crime No.71 of 2020
before the Nandigama Police Station, Cyberabad District.
5. At that stage, appellant filed writ petition No.5526
of 2022. This Court by order dated 23.02.2022 allowed the
writ petition by directing Hyderabad Regional Passport Office
to process the passport application of the appellant and issue
passport to him without raising objection with regard to
pendency of Crime No.71 of 2020. Thereafter, passport was
issued to the appellant but the validity of the passport was for
a period of one year only i.e., from 13.04.2022 to 12.04.2023.
6. Contending that action of the Regional Passport
Office in issuing a passport of one year duration as opposed
to 10 year period, appellant approached this Court by filing
writ petition No.24743 of 2022. The writ petition was allowed
by the learned Single Judge vide the order dated 12.10.2022
3 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.785 of 2022
by giving liberty to the appellant to submit an application to
the Regional Passport Office for renewal of his passport for a
period of 10 years. Regional Passport Office has been directed
to consider such application and thereafter renew the
passport of the appellant for a period of 10 years as per Rule
12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980.
7. That apart, learned Single Judge imposed the
condition that if the appellant wants to travel aboard, he
should seek permission of the Court concerned in Crime
No.71 of 2020 besides cooperating with the Investigating
Officer.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
Crime No.71 of 2020 has been instituted by the neighbour of
the appellant on extremely frivolous grounds. As a matter of
fact, appellant has filed a petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing Crime No.71
of 2020. This Court by order dated 20.05.2020 in I.A.No.1 of
2020 in Criminal Petition No.2211 of 2020 has granted stay of
investigation. Therefore, question of appellant obtaining
4 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.785 of 2022
permission from the Court in connection with Crime No.71 of
2020 does not arise.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that order passed by the learned Single
Judge is justified and no interference is called for.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
on due consideration, we are of the view that the order dated
12.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is in favour of
the appellant. Learned Single Judge has in fact directed
Regional Passport Office to renew the passport of the
appellant for a period of 10 years upon receipt of application
for extension from the appellant. Insofar Crime No.71 of 2020
is concerned, it is true that a stay order has been passed by
this Court, but that does not mean that Crime No.71 of 2020
has ceased to exist as on date or erased from the record.
Since it is in existence, learned Single Judge was justified in
imposing the conditions. Further, we find that learned Single
Judge has taken the care in not directing the appellant to
5 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.785 of 2022
seek permission from the police but from the concerned
Court.
11. In view of above, we find no error or infirmity in
the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
12. However, we make it clear that question of seeking
permission of the Court would only arise at the stage when
appellant seeks to travel abroad. The said condition is not
required for issuing the passport by the Regional Passport
Office.
13. Subject to the above clarification, Writ Appeal is
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
___________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 01.12.2022
KL
