APHC010185332024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 9371/2024 Between: 1. POLNATI SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O. VENKATA RAO AGED 61 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O.D.NO.33/3, NEAR RAMALAYAM THIMMAPURAM, TUNI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders dated 19.3.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent in directing the petitioner to surrender his passport as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently setaside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay the operation of orders dated 19.3.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal of writ petition. Page 2 of 5 SRS,J W.P.No.9371 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Assailing the order issued by the 2nd respondent dated 19.03.2024, directing the petitioner to surrender the passport, until the petitioner gets acquittal order or no objection certificate from the concerned Court, as per the Gazette Notification GSR 570(e), dated 25.08.1993 and further directing the petitioner to submit an undertaking affidavit, the above writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Umadevi, learned counsel, appeared for the respondents. 3. The petitioner applied to issue a passport vide file No. VS1076220354524. The 2nd respondent, in turn, considered the application and issued a passport bearing No.B8780591 from 05.02.2024 to 04.02.2034. 4. Be that as it may, a notice dated 19.03.2024, was issued to the petitioner seeking clarification. In the notice, it was mentioned that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 15.03.2024 (Ex.P3). Without considering the explanation, the order impugned was issued by the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the Cr.No.338 of 2019, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.108 of 2020, wherein the High Court granted an interim stay of all further proceedings. Despite the order in Crl.P.No.108 of 2020, the police filed a charge sheet on the file of the learned SRS,J W.P.No.9371 of 2024 Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.3 of 2020. The petitioner filed Crl.P.No.6472 of 2021, challenging the same, wherein this Court granted an interim order on 18.11.2021, and the same is subsisting. In respect of C.C.No.157 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.6787 of 2022, and the high court granted an interim order on 06.09.2022, and the same is subsisting. Consideration: 6. Thus, as seen from Ex.P1, the authority did not even refer to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. When the explanation was submitted by the petitioner to the notice issued vide Ex.P2, the respondent authorities should have considered the explanation and passed an order. However, the authority for the reasons best known has given go bye to the said procedure. 7. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, the 2nd respondent failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Hence, the order passed by the 2nd respondent suffers from a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned 2nd respondent. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh explanation by annexing all the relevant documents, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On receipt of such explanation, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the Rules, keeping in view of the order in W.A.No.383 of 2024 and judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1. 1 AIR 1978 SC 597 SRS,J W.P.No.9371 of 2024 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 17.03.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.9371 of 2024 154 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.9371 OF 2024 Date : 17.03.2025 TVN