APHC010571882024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30292/2024 Between: Veera Venkata Prasad Raju Yerramsetti ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BANDA SAI SAMPATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri K.Nagaraju, learned counsel representing Sri B.S.Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Niranjan, learned Central Government Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, learned Public Prosecutor for CID for respondents 4 & 5, and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the 6th respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is not reissuing the passport, in pursuance of his application vide File No.VSB076035216123, dated 06.02.2023, is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner made an application for the reissuing of the passport before the 2nd respondent. A shortfall notice dated 04.06.2024 (Ex.P5) was issued to the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 27.08.2024 (Ex.P1). He would submit that despite the explanation by the petitioner, the passport was not reissued. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Sri K.Sandeep, learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor for CID, would submit that a case in Crime No.9 of 2013 of Yelamanchili Police Station was registered against the petitioner. The police filed a charge sheet, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.21 of 2017 on the file of the Special Judge to try the Cases under A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the same is pending. They would further submit that since a calendar case is pending, the petitioner has to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will approach the concerned jurisdictional Court with the necessary application. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court, where C.C.No.21 of 2017 is pending and make an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the learned Court shall consider the pass appropriate orders keeping in view Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J PVD