The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or orders declaring the action of Respondent No.2 ln not reissuing/renewing passport of the petitioner by raising objection on the application submitted by the petitioner vide application No.HY75C5901095025 citing pending criminal case as being arbitrary, vindictive, ilegal, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21of the Constitution of lndia and against to the principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the objec'tion letter bearing reference No.OBJ/1049806457125, Dated 11-08-2025 with a direction to renegreissue passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years from the date of renewa!/reissue. + # f # # + {r + *, ,+ # : ) : :r i I i t: i l t ,. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 consider the application of the petitioner vide application No.HY75C5901095025 and issue/renew his passport pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDADIAJAY KUMAR counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 2: sRl PULIMAM|D| SHASHTDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: ..- The Court made the foltowing: ORDER f ! I I f zr4 ,t .* ,t # ,+ # ,+ * + * ,+ * .+ * ''F * -f * f f f f 1a\ THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PEIITION Ito.257O5 OF 2O25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2.d respondent in not reissuing/renewing passport application of the petitioner uide application No.HY75C5901095025, by raising objection, dt.lL.O8.2O25, on the ground of pending criminal case, as being arbitrary and illegal, with a consequential relief to set aside the same and direct the respondents to renew/reissue passport of tl e petitioner for a period of 10 years from the date of renewal/reissue.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pulimamidi Shashidar Reddy, learned Cent at Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. L & 2.

3. Petitioner contends that in response to the application made by him for renewal/rqissue of passport, he received a letter, dt.11.O8.2O25, from the 2'd respondent advising him to furnish explanation for suppression of pendency of case uide CC.No.923 of 2OL9 in Cr.No.475 of 2OLT of SHO., P.S., Mancherial Town and directed him to appear in person along with all the relevant documents, that in pursuance to the said letter, the petitioner had appeared and submitted all the relevant documents, and that the , I I 2 (-. ( respondents, even after receipt of the documents, did not issue/renew his passport.

4. Petitioner further contended that as there is no column in the passport renewal application to mention the details of the pending criminal cases, he could not furnish the said details and he had no intention to suppress the pendency of criminal case.

5. Sri Pulimamidi Shashidar Reddy, rearned central Government Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.l & 2 submits that as per the police reports, the applicant is found involved in cr.No.475/2o17 of ps Mancherial rown, which was taken cognizance by the JFCM, Mancheriar, by assigning cc.No.923/2o19 and the same is pending, and as such the 2.d respondent had issued, objection letter, dt.11.09.2o25, calling upon the petitioner to submit relevant documents and furnish explanation within (3o) days for suppression of above information in the passport application. 6- Learned Standing counsel further submits that the stand taken by the petitioner in t.l..e writ affrdavit that as there was no column in the passport renewal application submitted by him for disclosure of pending criminal cases, he could not furnish the said details, is a false assertion, and that since the renewal passport of the petitioner was not issued on the ground of suppression of facts, 7 / * * *, i i I I : l I I i : I I I 3 there are no merits in the present writ petition and is Iiable to be dismissed.

7. The above assertion made by the petitioner in the writ alfrdavit that as tlere is no afumn in tle passport reneual appliation to tttEtfiian tte detnils of the pending criminal ase' te auld rwt fumish tle said details makes it clear that the petitioner is having knowledge about pending criminal case against him and it amounts to suppression of facts' Therefore' the reason given by the petitioner for non-furnishing of such information as noted hereinabove, is unaccePtable ' In view of ttre above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with 8. exemplary costs of Rs.1,OO,OOO/- (Rupees One lakh) payable to the High Court kgal Services Committee, High Court Buildings' ConsequenflY, miscellaneous applications, pending if any' shall stand closed. MORA NDUMOFCOSTS Rs. Ps Costs Quantified by Hon'ble Court- (That inl-F"tit.n"i hereih and Counsel for the- [:"1 l;'fl;i.el",sr::* ;:1" EI' ti-,ir ii irr"riiiine iela'ngana High court Legal Services Commiftee, High Court for tne ai;G-;i Telangana, HigF court Buildings' Hyderabad. TOTAL 1,00,000-00 1,00,00 040 S ,ITRUE COPY" To

1. The Telangana Hig angana SRI KO 2 3 One CC to SRI PU State of Tel One CC to D'-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG s TA NT REGIST TION OFFICER rt for the [OPUCI HIGH COURT DATED i2910812025 ORDER WP.No.25705 of 2025 SIn 1 I JAN 2O2E \J c t .\ ). DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS 't * f #. * ,* * * * !* * l# * *, * ,+ # i ! ; t I f I f f t + * I +f t, li& a.' f * f

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or orders declaring the action of Respondent No.2 ln not reissuing/renewing passport of the petitioner by raising objection on the application submitted by the petitioner vide application No.HY75C5901095025 citing pending criminal case as being arbitrary, vindictive, ilegal, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21of the Constitution of lndia and against to the principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the objec'tion letter bearing reference No.OBJ/1049806457125, Dated 11-08-2025 with a direction to renegreissue passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years from the date of renewa!/reissue. + # f # # + {r + *, ,+ # : ) : :r i I i t: i l t ,. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 consider the application of the petitioner vide application No.HY75C5901095025 and issue/renew his passport pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDADIAJAY KUMAR counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 2: sRl PULIMAM|D| SHASHTDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: ..- The Court made the foltowing: ORDER f ! I I f zr4 ,t .* ,t # ,+ # ,+ * + * ,+ * .+ * ''F * -f * f f f f 1a\ THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PEIITION Ito.257O5 OF 2O25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2.d respondent in not reissuing/renewing passport application of the petitioner uide application No.HY75C5901095025, by raising objection, dt.lL.O8.2O25, on the ground of pending criminal case, as being arbitrary and illegal, with a consequential relief to set aside the same and direct the respondents to renew/reissue passport of tl e petitioner for a period of 10 years from the date of renewal/reissue.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pulimamidi Shashidar Reddy, learned Cent at Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. L & 2.

3. Petitioner contends that in response to the application made by him for renewal/rqissue of passport, he received a letter, dt.11.O8.2O25, from the 2'd respondent advising him to furnish explanation for suppression of pendency of case uide CC.No.923 of 2OL9 in Cr.No.475 of 2OLT of SHO., P.S., Mancherial Town and directed him to appear in person along with all the relevant documents, that in pursuance to the said letter, the petitioner had appeared and submitted all the relevant documents, and that the , I I 2 (-. ( respondents, even after receipt of the documents, did not issue/renew his passport.

4. Petitioner further contended that as there is no column in the passport renewal application to mention the details of the pending criminal cases, he could not furnish the said details and he had no intention to suppress the pendency of criminal case.

5. Sri Pulimamidi Shashidar Reddy, rearned central Government Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.l & 2 submits that as per the police reports, the applicant is found involved in cr.No.475/2o17 of ps Mancherial rown, which was taken cognizance by the JFCM, Mancheriar, by assigning cc.No.923/2o19 and the same is pending, and as such the 2.d respondent had issued, objection letter, dt.11.09.2o25, calling upon the petitioner to submit relevant documents and furnish explanation within (3o) days for suppression of above information in the passport application. 6- Learned Standing counsel further submits that the stand taken by the petitioner in t.l..e writ affrdavit that as there was no column in the passport renewal application submitted by him for disclosure of pending criminal cases, he could not furnish the said details, is a false assertion, and that since the renewal passport of the petitioner was not issued on the ground of suppression of facts, 7 / * * *, i i I I : l I I i : I I I 3 there are no merits in the present writ petition and is Iiable to be dismissed.

7. The above assertion made by the petitioner in the writ alfrdavit that as tlere is no afumn in tle passport reneual appliation to tttEtfiian tte detnils of the pending criminal ase' te auld rwt fumish tle said details makes it clear that the petitioner is having knowledge about pending criminal case against him and it amounts to suppression of facts' Therefore' the reason given by the petitioner for non-furnishing of such information as noted hereinabove, is unaccePtable ' In view of ttre above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with 8. exemplary costs of Rs.1,OO,OOO/- (Rupees One lakh) payable to the High Court kgal Services Committee, High Court Buildings' ConsequenflY, miscellaneous applications, pending if any' shall stand closed. MORA NDUMOFCOSTS Rs. Ps Costs Quantified by Hon'ble Court- (That inl-F"tit.n"i hereih and Counsel for the- [:"1 l;'fl;i.el",sr::* ;:1" EI' ti-,ir ii irr"riiiine iela'ngana High court Legal Services Commiftee, High Court for tne ai;G-;i Telangana, HigF court Buildings' Hyderabad. TOTAL 1,00,000-00 1,00,00 040 S ,ITRUE COPY" To

1. The Telangana Hig angana SRI KO 2 3 One CC to SRI PU State of Tel One CC to D'-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG s TA NT REGIST TION OFFICER rt for the [OPUCI HIGH COURT DATED i2910812025 ORDER WP.No.25705 of 2025 SIn 1 I JAN 2O2E \J c t .\ ). DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS 't * f #. * ,* * * * !* * l# * *, * ,+ # i ! ; t I f I f f t + * I +f t, li& a.' f * f