KODALI NAGESWARA RAO Vs. KONERU VENU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaining in-action on the part of the 2nd respondent herein in not taking any action for cancellation of the Passport of the 1st respondent bearing No.A-113801, dated 15-10-1990 issued by him under Section 10(3) of the Indian Passport Act, the defacto-complainant before XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to act in accordance with law at the earliest possible time.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this case are that one Phani Priya daughter of the petitioner herein was given in marriage to one Koneru Venu, who is presently staying in United States of America by virtue of the Passport issued by the 2nd respondent valid from 15-10-1992 to 14-10-2000. Unfortunately, the marital relationship seemed to have broken down and the petitioner herein filed a complaint before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate to take action against the 2nd respondent herein under Section 498-A of IPC, alleging that his daughter was subjected to mental and physical agony. The Magistrate seemed to have referred the complaint to the Woman Protection Cell, Hyderabad and the police seemed to have issued FIR after registering the complaint in Crime No.200 of 98 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation the police felt the presence of the respondent No.l is essential and in those circumstances the Addl. Director General of Police in his letter No.390/C-30/WPC/98, dated 30-3-1998 informed the 2nd respondent that inspite of their best efforts they could not secure the presence of the respondent No.l and requested him to cancel the Passport issued by him in favour of Koneru Venu under Section 10(3)(e) of the Indian Passport Act. But, unfortunately, the 2nd respondent seemed to have not taken any action. Apprehending that the 1st respondent may move the Courts in the USA for getting divorce and other allied matters if the proceedings initiated in this country are delayed the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Sri R Adinarayana Rao, Sr.Central Government Standing Counsel contested the application stoutly by contending that the circumstances under which a Passport issued can be impounded or revoked mentioned under Section 10 of the Passport Act are not in existence and stated that the present situation is not governed by any of the contingencies mentioned therein. He also contended (hat Section 10(3)(e) comes into play only after the Court takes cognizance of the offence, but not earlier to that.