Telangana High Court
Venkata Ramana Talasu vs The Union Of India on 9 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
WRIT PETITION NO.1019 OF 2025
Mr. P. Sathwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen
Kumar, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.
ORDER:
The present writ petition has been filed for a direction on the
respondent No.2-The Regional Passport Officer, to renew the
passport of the petitioner.
2. The respondent authorities are represented.
3. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as the respondents, it appears that the issue was considered
by 2 Co-ordinate Benches in W.P.Nos.8697 of 2023 and 22218 of
2024. Both the learned Single Judges referred to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court Judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v.
Central Bureau of Investigation 1 and came to the finding that mere
pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to decline the
renewal of passport provided that the petitioner is ready for
renewal of passport. In this case the petitioner is also ready to
cooperate with the Trial Court in concluding the trial. The
petitioner before the Court is also willing to cooperate with the
pending proceedings. This Court also finds factual similarities
2020 Crl.L.J.(SC) 572
between Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) and the present
case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Passport
Authority cannot refuse the renewal of passport on the ground of
pendency of criminal proceedings and accordingly directed the
Passport Authority to renew the passport of the petitioner without
raising objection relating to pendency of criminal proceedings.
4. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition
can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a reply to
the letter dated 03.12.2024. The respondent No.2 will consider the
reply submitted by the petitioner and take steps for renewal of the
passport in due compliance of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra). The petitioner
shall however be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall submit an undertaking along with an
affidavit before the learned XXIV Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in
C.C.No.1301 of 2019 stating that the petitioner will not leave
India during pendency of the C.C. without permission of the
Court and the petitioner will cooperate with the Trial Court
in concluding the criminal proceedings.
(ii) The Trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the
undertaking and affidavit within 2 weeks from the date of
filing of the undertaking.
(iii) The petitioner shall submit the certified copy of the
aforesaid undertaking along with the reply/explanation
before the concerned Passport Officer for consideration of his
application for renewal of passport.
(iv) The Passport Authority shall consider the documents in
the light of the observations made by the Courts as well as
the undertaking and other documents filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner shall also be at liberty to rely on the decisions
in this regard. The petitioner shall deposit the original
passport before the Trial Court in criminal case for renewal
of the passport. The petitioner shall at liberty to file an
application before the learned XXIV Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, seeking
permission to travel outside India. The learned XXIV
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayath Nagar, Ranga
Reddy District, shall consider the same in accordance with
law. It is however made clear that the passport authorities
shall have discussion in issuing the passport for duration
which appears to be appropriate to the authorities.
5. W.P.No.1019 of 2025 is disposed of in terms of the above.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
Date: 09.01.2025
NDS
