Vutpalamala Hanumanth Rao v. The Union Of India

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4265 of 2019 ORDER:

Heard.

2.

This Writ Petition is filed alleging inaction in granting Passport to the petitioner to enable him to visit Kuala Lumpur. 3.

However, learned Standing Counsel points out, based on the material placed on record, that on 15.02.2019, a notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation as to why he has not disclosed information in the Passport application regarding pendency of crime No.116/2017 of Saifabad Police Station, Central Zone, against him. It appears, the petitioner has not responded to the said notice.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that mere pendency of crime cannot be the reason for non consideration of petitioner's request for renewal of Passport and non-disclosure of information by the petitioner in the application was not deliberate and willful and it was only due to oversight. 5.

However, the fact remains that no explanation was submitted by the petitioner. Hence, this Court cannot express any opinion at this stage on justification in issuing notice to the petitioner by the Passport Officer, having regard to the provision in Section 12 (1) (b) of The Passport Act, 1967. The Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to respond to the notice explaining the reasons for not disclosing registration of crime against him. It is needless to state that if any such

explanation is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and a decision thereon to be taken within a period of one week from the date of submission of such explanation. It is always open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, if the explanation is not properly appreciated by the competent authority.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 1st March, 2019.

Note : Issue C.C. in three days.

B/o.

sur