APHC010153112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7967/2025 Between: 1. R TEJASWINI, D/O. RAVI BABU, AGE 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION STUDENT, R/O. H.NO.17-131, PONNIYAMMAN KOIL STREET, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADES ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI, INDIA. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, OPP TO RADIO STATION, GOVERNERPET, M.G ROAD VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 in not renewing the Passport of the Petitioner vide Application No.VJ 1076847377724, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, consequentially direct the Respondent No.2 to Renew the Passport of Petitioner vide Passport bearing SRS,J W.P.No.7967 of 2025 No.B9880627 as per Notification Dated 25-08-1993 vide No.570 (E) clause a (i) for a Period of 10 Years and pass IA 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 Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 to Renew the Passport of Petitioner vide Passport bearing No.B9880627 as per Notification Dated: 25-08-1993 vide No.570 (E) clause a (i) for a Period of 10 Years, pending determination of Writ Petition; and may be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not renewing the passport of the petitioner, in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner vide No.VJ1076847377724, is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Divya Datla, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner, having a passport vide No.B9880627 from 08.02.2024 to 07.02.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to reissue/renew the passport. A shortfall notice dated 21.08.2024 was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, another two notices, dated 28.09.2024 and 10.12.2024, respectively, were issued to the petitioner. No explanation has been submitted. However, in the affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner SRS,J W.P.No.7967 of 2025 approached respondent No.2 and explained orally. In para No.3 of the affidavit, it was averred that the petitioner was shown as accused No.4 in C.C.No.6629 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 420, 406, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (arising out of FIR No.201 of 2023 dated 05.04.2023 of Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner approached the learned XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad and filed Crl.M.P.No.7814 of 2023 in C.C.No.6629 of 2023 to permit the petitioner to apply for a passport, and the same was allowed on 22.01.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a passport to the petitioner for one year. Learned counsel also would submit that respondent No.2 failed to issue passport to the petitioner as per the timelines fixed under Section 7 of Passport Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) r/w Rule 12 of the Passport Act Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2 would submit that since a charge sheet was filed in the aforementioned criminal case, the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. In fact, the petitioner earlier approached the jurisdictional Magistrate. After an order by the learned Magistrate, the authority issued a passport. 6. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute that the petitioner arrayed as accused No.4 in CC.No.6629 of 2023 on the file of the learned XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad. The petitioner, in fact, filed Crl.M.P.No.7814 of 2023 and the same was allowed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, and thereafter, the petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.B9880627, for one year. 7. Section 7 of the Passport Act, 1967, deals with the duration of passports and travel documents. Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980 also envisages the duration of passports or travel documents. As per Rule 12 (1) of SRS,J W.P.No.7967 of 2025 the Rules, an ordinary passport for persons other than children below the age of 15 years shall be in force for ten years from the date of its issue. However, the authority renewed the passport, in pursuance of the order, for a year. The petitioner, in fact, filed a miscellaneous petition in C.C, before the jurisdictional court on an earlier occasion, and hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the same Court again. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the same Court and make an application. Upon making such an application, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders, keeping in view Rule 12 of the Rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 04.04.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.7967 of 2025 231 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.7967 OF 2025 Date : 04.04.2025 TVN