IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15323 of 2014 Between:
Religare Finvest Limited, D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory K. Lakshman Singh, S/o. K.B. Singh, Aged about 41 years, R/o. Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner AND Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15323 of 2014 ORDER:
The case of the petitioner company is that the petitioner company extended loan to Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited. Respondents 3 and 4 are the Directors and Promoter Shareholders of Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited. Making several allegations which attract various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the petitioner company claimed to have filed several criminal complaints and criminal cases, which are pending before the criminal Courts. The respondents are likely to travel abroad and avoid facing criminal prosecution. The petitioner company submitted representation on 17.06.2013 requesting the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad (second respondent) to impound the passport of T. Venkatram Reddy (3rd respondent). On 10.01.2014, another representation is submitted requesting to impound the passport of T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy (4th respondent).
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner company submits that even though the request to impound the passport was made on 17.06.2013 with reference to the third respondent and on 10.01.2014 with reference to the 4th respondent, so far no orders are passed.
3. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short, ‘the Act’), gives discretion to the Passport Authority to impound or not to impound the passport and the petitioner company cannot compel the Passport Authority to impound the passports.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner company submits that the petitioner company is not seeking mandamus at this stage with reference to the competency of the Passport Authority to impound or not to impound. Representations are submitted requesting the authority to exercise power under Section 10(3) of the Act. It is mandatory for a statutory authority to pass appropriate orders, as warranted by law, as and when a request is made to exercise power vested by the Act and the authority cannot keep quiet and keep the representations pending for a long time adversely affecting the rights and interests of the petitioner.
5. Having regard to the submissions made, without expressing any opinion, the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad (second respondent) is directed to pass appropriate orders, as warranted by law, on the representations submitted by the petitioner company, dated 17.06.2013 and 10.01.2014, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner company. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 5th June, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15323 of 2014 Date: 5th June, 2014 KL