Avula Venkata Narayana Reddy V. The Union of India and Another

WP/19041/2020

AI Insights

The case involves A. Venkata Narayana Reddy, the petitioner, who challenged the action of the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad, in issuing a directive to surrender his renewed passport due to undisclosed criminal proceedings at the time of passport application. The petitioner argued that he had a bona fide belief that disclosing the criminal proceedings was unnecessary, as he had resigned from his directorship before the proceedings began. The criminal proceedings were under the Income Tax Act, involving compoundable offences, and were stayed by a Division Bench. The court considered the petitioner's concerns but did not find sufficient grounds to override the established procedure that respects the Central Government Circular regarding travel permissions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 736782 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Section 151 CPC, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAMAVARAPU RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: G VIVEKANAND
• Keywords: Compounding of Offence; Criminal Proceedings; Income Tax Act; Writ of Mandamus; Regional Passport Officer
• Section: 151; 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) [/ONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Between: AND Avuia Venkata Narayana Redd R/o. B-1-299/SV/E/9, Phase - Hyderabad -33 y, S/o. Sri A. Pulla Reddy, Aged 51 years, Occ. Business, ll, Senor Valley, Road No. '10, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, .PETITIONER 1. The Union of lndia, Rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad, 8-2-215 to 2'19, Adjacent to Prashanth Theatre, Kummarguda' secu nderabad-.,3 ...RES'.NDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 issue a direction, directing the 2nd respondent not to take any coercive steps, with ref., to the proceed ing s/letJpr No. HYD/30iPol/PlCl450l2020, dt.Ogl1O12020 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 suspend the proceedings/letter of the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad, the 2nd Respondent herein vide, proceedings /letter No. HYD/3O/PollPlcl45012020, dt.0911012020 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. VIVEKANAND Counsel for Respondents: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER PRESENT WRIT PETITION NO: 19041 OF 2020 Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, in rssuing proceedings/letter No. HYD/30/Pol/P1Cl45012020, dt.0911012020 wherein the 2nd respondent directed the Petitioner to surrender renewed passport bearing No.24441451, dt.20106/2018 within 15 days, without considering the explanations of the Petitioner to the notrces issued by the 2nd respondent from time to time, in their proper perspective, as highly illegal, arbitrary, suffers from non-application of mind and consequently set aside the said letter/proceedings dt.09t10t2020 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM 'Rl'I PEl'1.ilO),,i o.190{l of 2020 ORDER: Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner. and the learned Standing Counsel lor the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the conruunication Inade by the 2nd respondent on 09.10.2020 stating that the petitioner had suppressed the factum of crirninal proceedings pending while making application for passport. There is no denial on the part of the petitioner with respect to non-mentioning of criminal proceedings which are pending, however, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is under a bona fide belief that the same is not required to be mentioned as the petitioner being an independent Director of the company and he had resigned to his Directorship before initiation of criminal proceedings. It is also the case of the petitioner that proceedings initiated are under the Income Tax Act. and the of'fences alleged are cornpoundable offences and as a matter of lact an application for corrpounding of the offence has been n:ade rr hich came to be olficially rejected and the rejection order has been challcnged b_\"- the conrpanv in W.P.No.l2459 of 2019 before this Court, and this Coun allowed the saicl writ petition on 09.07.2019 and remitted the matter to the Principal Chiel Commissioner of Income Tax directing to consider afresh and pass orders on merits. However, as on date the Income Tax authorities are yet to pass orders. Further, the Division Bench had stayed the proceedings before the Economic Offences Court in C.C.No.230 of 2016. Now it is the case of the petitioner that as the proceedings have been stayed bv the Division Bench in C.C.No.230 of 2016, the learned Special Judge tbr Economic Offences may not take up his application for perrnission to travel abroad in terms of GSR 570(E), dated 25.08.1993. In those circumstances, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus. Having considered the subrnissions of the petitioner. if any order is to be nrade as pral'ed b_,.' the petitioner. it would be nothing but a direction to the respondent authorities to violate the Central Covemment Circular which u as approved by this Cou( in a large number of cases. I-lowever. the apprehension of the petitioner that the leamed Special Judge for Econornic Oft'ences in C.C.No.230 oi 2016 may not take up his application appears to be genuine. and thereibre the course that is required to be adopted by the petitioner woulcl be to make an application before the Special Judge, and in the event of the rnatter not being taken up, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an application before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., or move an application before the Division Bench seeking appropriate orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed by giving liberty to the petitioner to take necessary steps. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/-N.CHA NDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT RE RAR, //TRUE COPY' To, 4. 5. tl. MBC 1 2 3 SECTION OFFICER The Special Judge for Economtc Offences Hyderabad. ii'i; 55;;;ir*-Hiini.trv of riiernal Affairs, Uni-on of lnida New Delhi' ii,iE illr\"iJib;;;il,i orr\",,r-i Hvi.j.#;a 8-i-2i5 ro 21e. Adjacent to Prashanth rheatre Kummaiguda. Secunderabad-003 on\" CC io Sri G Vivekanand Advocate IOPUCI 6;; 6c i; sii N. Ralesrrwainao,-Aisisiant soiicitor General [oPUC] Two CD CoPies C.C.TODAY HIGH COURT DATED fi211112020 ORDER WP.No.19041 of 2020 LOSING THE WRIT PETITION 3 ,llfi NW 2020 * ( 1 $ o HE Sl4 p WITHOUT COSTS "