Telangana High Court
Advitha Badri vs The Union Of India on 17 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.30770 and 30778 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
These writ petitions are filed seeking to issue direction to respondent No.2 to issue passports to the petitioners by considering the passport applications dated 04.09.2024 and applicant guardian specimen declaration dated 04.09.2024.
2. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
3. Heard Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Sri G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V.Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.
5. Petitioners are minor children of Smt.Sruthi Kanuganti and Mr.Bhadri Vijay Kumar, respondent No.3. The minor children were selected for dance Program at Soma Hall, 2 Wisma, Tunsambanthan, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from their Dance Academy i.e., Mythreya Kuchipudi Kalakshetram, Jangaon Town and District and for the above said purpose, they submitted passport applications to respondent No.2 on 04.09.2024 with support of their mother, to travel from Hyderabad to Malayisa. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 issued intimation letter dated 17.09.2024, stating that consent of father i.e., respondent No.3 is required to issue passports, due to pendency of the cases between Smt.Sruthi Kanuganti and Mr.Bhadri Vijay Kumar, respondent No.3 in M.C.No.18 of 2021, D.V.C.No.10 of 2021 and Dowry Harassment Case vide C.C.No.478 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon and H.M.O.P.No.108 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon and Child Custody Case vide G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2022 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Jangaon and the same was dismissed on 31.07.2023, but all other cases are pending. Though respondent No.3 is not giving consent, respondent No.2 ought to have issued passports in favour of petitioners,. Learned counsel further submits that the issue raised in these 3 writ petitions is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.31096 of 2022, dated 13.10.2022.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners ought to have obtained permission from the Junior Civil Judge and Senior Civil Judge Jangaon, where the cases are pending.
7. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that obtaining permission from the competent Court is not required on the ground that the petitioners are minors and especially they want to travel from India to Malaysia for the purpose of dance program and they are residing in Jangaon Town only.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioners, who are children of Smt.Sruthi Kanuganti and Mr.Bhadri Vijay Kumar, respondent No.3, submitted passport applications before respondent No.2 on 04.09.2024, requesting to issue passports for the purpose of travelling from India to Malaysia to attend dance program. It also reveals that the petitioners are the 4 students of Mythreya Kuchipudi Kalakshetram, Jangaon Town and District. In view of pendency of cases between their parents namely Smt.Sruthi Kanuganti and Mr.Bhadri Vijay Kumar, respondent No.3, respondent No.3 is not coming forward to give consent.
9. It is also relevant to mention that this Court while disposing of W.P.No.31096 of 2022, dated 13.10.2022, relied upon the following judgments:
"In Juvairiya v. Regional Passport Officer 1 High Court of Kerela considered the issuance of Passport on consent not being obtained from the other parent and held that if the affidavit as required under the Passport Rules, 1980 is submitted, then necessarily Passport officer would have to issue Passport in the name of the minor child.
Relying on the said principle High court of Kerela in Rabeeha v. Ministry of External affairs, Regional Passport Officer 2 reiterated the said principle.
In another judgment in Chaitnya S.Nair v. Union of India 3, High Court of Kerela reiterated the said principle."
10. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the respective parties and order passed by this Court in W.P.No.31096 of 2022, dated 19.10.2022, the impugned proceedings dated 17.09.2024 are illegal and also contrary to the 1 . (2014) 1 (K) ALT 1990 2 . (2015) lawsuit (K) 722 3 . WP(C)No.22555 of 2021, dated 08.03.2022 5 Passport Rules and the principle laid down by High Court of Kerala in the aforesaid judgments. Therefore, the same are set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners dated 04.09.2024 and issue Passports to the petitioners.
11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO Dated 17.02.2025 Note: Issue CC in three (3) days b/o vsl