Telangana High Court
WP/28173/2009 of KANCHIRAJU SATYA PRABHAKAR, Vs The Regional Passport Officer, on 29 December 2009
L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28173 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was issued a passport on 24.03.1999 by the office of the respondent. It was valid for a period of 10 years up to 23.03.2009. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the passport. His grievance is that the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.28173 of 2009
ORDER:
The petitioner was issued a passport on 24.03.1999by the office of the respondent. It was valid for a period of10 years up to 23.03.2009. The petitioner submitted anapplication for renewal of the passport. His grievance isthat the respondent is not renewing the passport byraising certain untenable grounds.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
Even from the averments made in the affidavit, filedin support of the writ petition, and the documents filed bythe petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner submitted anapplication for renewal of the passport with vague anduncertain information. Clause 5 of the prescribed formdeals with the place of birth. In this, the applicant has tomention the Village/Town, District, State, Country withdocumentary proof. When such is the requirement underClause 5, the petitioner got typed “Secunderabad RangaReddy”. Secunderabad can be described as town,whereas Ranga Reddy is a district. Secunderabad is notpart of Ranga Reddy District. The particulars to bementioned in Clause 5 are not at all mentioned properlyand what all stated itself was contradictory. Thecorrespondence is said to have ensued thereafter that the application is defective. There is hardly anything therespondent can do about it. Even now, the petitioner hasto make an application with correct particulars with proof.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it opento the petitioner to file fresh application with correct andproper particulars. It is needless to observe that therespondent shall process such an application, inaccordance with law, as and when it is presented. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________
JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
29[th] December 2009dr