MOHAMMED TAHSEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mohd Rafee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(2.) The Case of the petitioner as per the averments made by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a resident of Purani Haveli at Hyderabad. He has obtained passport bearing No.G7252775 from respondent No.2 vide File No.HY3075585665323, dtd. 18/7/2023, which was valid upto 23/1/2018. Therefore, he has applied for renewal of passport by following the due procedure. After several representations being made by the petitioner, the petitioner has received a letter No.SCL/316361085/23, dtd. 1/12/2023, from the Passport authorities stating that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.42/2009 on the file of XV Addl. CMM, Nampally, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 307 IPC, 295-A, 324, 333, 153A, 295(A) r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 7(1) CLA Act, 1932, of Dabeerpura P.S., which was numbered as P.R.C.No.338 of 2020 and hence his passport cannot be renewed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a innocent person and he was falsely implicated in the above said Crime No. 42/2009, and therefore, the respondents cannot refuse for renewal of passport of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal cases filed against him and the said action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967 and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020 Crl.L.J.(SC) 571 in "Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation".