D.Hanumantha Rayudu v. The Union of India,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

Judgment date: 2026-04-29

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-29. D.Hanumantha Rayudu v. The Union of India,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[ 3300 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 11843 OF 2026 Between: D. Hanumantha Rayudu, S/o. D. Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, Age 62 years, Retired Government Servant, R/o. 4406, Vidyut Arcade, Kousalya Colony, Bachupally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of lndia,, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs,- PSP Division, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Telangana, D. No. 8-2-215 lo 219, Near Prashanth Theater, Kummarguda, Secunderabad. 3. The Commissionerof Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Bachupally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of 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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that a)the action of the Respondent No. 2 in ruing Letter vide Hy3085012094126 dated 10. 04. 2025110. 04. 2926 rejecting the PCC application of the petitioner dated 18. 03. 2026 is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to office memorandum issued in GSR 570(E) dated 25. 08. 1993 and office memorandum dated 10. 10. 2019. b[urther declare that the respondents shall issue PCC to the petitioner to allow him to travel to US for attending the graduate ceremony of his daughter in pursuance of orders passed by special Judge for Trail of cases under PC Act, Rajamahendravaram in Crl. M. P. No. 638 oI 2025 in CC No. 168 of 2018 dated 31 . 10. 2025 l. A.

NO: 1OF 2026 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 direct the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to immediately take steps to issue PCC (Police Clearance Certificate) to the petitioner by suspending .. the operation of Lefter No' HY3085012094126 daled 10. 04. 2026 (wrongly typed as 10. 04. 2025\ pending disposal of the Writ Petition. l. A. NO: 2OF 2026 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 direct the Respondents No. 3 and 4 especially P. S. Bachupally to send a Police Clearance Certificate Report to the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad for issuing a PCC to the petitioner for submitting the same to the US Consulate General at Hyderabad for the purpose of issuance of VISA pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.

SURENDHER RAO, REPRESENTING SRI. M VASUDEVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. N BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF IND]A Counsel for the Respondent No. : GP FOR HOME The Gourt made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No. 11843 OF 2o26 29. 04. 2026 Between: D. Hanumaltha Rayudu Petitioner And The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of trxternal Aflairs & others ..... Respondents ORDER: Petitioner states that while he was working as STO, Ofhce of District Treasury, Eluru, West Godavari District, FIR No. 6 of 2015 was registercd by P. S. ACB, West Godavari on 27. O4. 2O25 which was subsequently registered as . C. C. No. 168 of 2Ol8 on ,. the file of the Spccial Judge for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act and so far, no schedule for trial has been given. 1. 1. While so, to attend his son's graduation ceremony, petitioner is stated to have llled Crl. M. P.

No. 6O0 of 2Ol9 wherein the learned Special Judge passed the order dated 28. 11. 2019 permitting him to go USA from the lst week of May 2O2O to lst week of August 2O2O, subject to certain conditions. ) Y At that timc, hc apptied for issuance of passport and the Regional Passport Authoriry, Hyderabad issued passport for the period 09. 12. 2019 Lo 08. I2. 2O2O. Now, again, petirioncr wants to go USA to attend gradualion ceremony of his daughter who pursued Masters there. Therefore, he is stated to have filed Crl. M. P. No. 638 of 2025 seeking permission to leave India for the said purpose. The learned Speciai Judge permitted him from 01. O3. 2026 to 30. 06. 2026, on furnishing an undertaking that his counsel would cooperate \4,ith the trial and that he would return India on or bcfore 30. 06. 2026 ancl also furnishing a personal bond lbr Rs. 50,0O0/-with one surety. 1 . 2. Petr tioner contends, on his Application, the Regional Passport Officer issued passport for the period 23. 01.

2026 to 22. 01. 2027, however, the Consulate General of USA, Hyderabacl refused the VISA Application requiring him to submit police certificale and he received a mail to do the needful. Immediately. petitioner is stated to have made on line Application dated I 8. O3. 2 026 passport to the Authority which requested Bachupalll. police to issue police clearance certificate. However, PS Bachupally with reference to the letter dated 1O. O4. 2025 regardin5l pCC Applicarion dared rc. O3. 2026, informed that PCC is a certificate indicating police clearance but police authorities have not recommended for issuance of pCC J stating that 'the applicant facing charges in FIR No. 6 of 2016 under Section PC Act, 1988, Section 7, ACBH PS Rajamandri and the case is inPT uide CC No. 168 ol 2018 before the Hon'ble Special Judge for Trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Rajamahendravaram. Hence, PCC cannot be issued without police clearance.

The passport officer thus passed the order dated lO . O4 . 2025 (wrongly typed as 20265 for 20261, impugned in this Writ Petition, staulrg that PCC cannot be issued without police clearance. 1. 3. According to petitioner, except the mentioned C. C. , no other criminal cases are pending against him and there is no complaint either in State of 'lelangana or in Andhra Pradesh. Hence, he requests this Court to issue a direction to respondent authorities for consideration of his case. 2. Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M. Vasudeva Rao, learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to GSR 57O(E), dated 25. O8. 1993 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, and submits that petitioner has a fundamental right under Article 2 1 to move within or outside the country, subject to certain statutory limitations; there is no law which prohibits a citizen completely for travelling abroad.

Further attention is drawn to clarification issued by the Government of India, External Affairs bf its Olfice Memorandum dated 10. 10. 2019, a reading of which rnakcs it clear [hat if the dctails given in [he police report and thc undertakinq submitted b,r, the applicant are matching, then 'No Objection Certificate' issued by a Court of lau, submitted try tl-re applicant take precedence ',vould over an1, Adverse Report' submitted by thc police. In such cascs, the 'Adversc' report rnay be overruled \^,ith the written approval of the Pirssporl Officer. 3. Sri N. Bhu. langa Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General has placed on record the w. ritten instructions submitted by tl-re Sub-lnspector of Police , Special Branch, eutbullapur Zonc, Bachrrpally Police Station, Cyberabad stating that rhey conducted verification in respect of antecedents of petitioner which revealed thal he is involved in Crime No.

6 of 2O 15 rcgistcred for the ofl-ence under Section 7 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988i of ACB P. S. , Rajamahendravaram and the same case is pendinii trial uide C. C. No. 168 of 2Ol8 on the file of ther Judge for Trial of Cases under prevention of Corruption Act, Rajamahendravaram and it was posted for appearance on O1. 06. 2026. The said information was communicated to the 2"d respondent. karned + c:ounsel for petitioner has placed reliance on thc order of thc l{igh Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated ( -/ ) OI. LO. 2O24 in W. P. (C) No. 72597 of 2024 wherein it was held that even though the State has the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 19(6), in the instant case, denying the petitioner a PCC due to the mere pendency of FIRs. without any conviction or finding of guilt constitutes an unreasonable restriction.

Therefore, it would be unjust to impose a blanket restriction on his efforts to secure a visa solely basetl on thc pendency of a case. 5. It is further observed, the primary role of a PCC is to ensure transparency about an individual's background not to impose blanket restrictions on the basis of pending cases. The issuance of PCC will neither impact the ongoing criminal proceedings not confer any undue advantage upon petitioner. Moreover, petitioner's right to r. r'ork and fredom of movement, must not be unjustly restricl-ed solely on the existence of these FIRs. 6. Admittedly, as borne out from the record, Crime No' 6 of 2015 which was taken into cognizance as C. C. No. 168 of 2018 is pending on the hle of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act and previously, under the directions issued by order dated 2a. Ll. 2Ol9 in Crl. M. P. No. 6O0 of 2019, the Regional Passport Authority, Hyderabad issued the passport in his favour.

It means the Passport authorities did not lind any reasolt ro dcny his travel privileges. This time also, the learned Spe<:ial . Jr.. Ldgc- uide order derted 3l. IO. 2O2S in Crl. M. P. No. 638 ot-2025 permitted petitioner to go USA from O1. O3. 2026 to 3(). 06. 2026 subject to certain conditions. Hon. ever, rvhen tl-Lr: Consulate General of USA, Hyderabad refused thr: VISA Application asking him to submit police certilic:rte, rhc Rcgional Passport Officer issucd the impugned ordcr sta[ing thaL PCC cannot be issued without police clearancc as thc police authorities have not rccommendecl citing thc r:lrargcs rr-r FIR No. 6 ol 20 15 under Secrion pC Act 19gg Section 7, ACB PS Rajamandri and the case is in pT vide C. C. No. 168 of 2018 before the Hon,ble Special Judge for Trial cases under Prcventiot-r of Corruption Act, Ra. lamahendravaram. 7. It is rel('vant to note that. the Regional passport Authority issued thc passport in favour of petitioner for the period O9. 12. 2019 to O8. t2.

2O2O and trorn 23. 01. 2026 to 22. 01. 20267 ... ,,[d a. time, and they did not find any reason to deny his travel privilcges. It would be inconsistent for the same authoritics to no\r, refuse to issue pCC solely a on the basis of the per-rciing F-IR. As observed by the High Court of Delhi, issuance of PCC is to cnsure transparency about an individual,s background, not to impose blanket restrictions on the basis of ( ongoing criminal proceedings nor confer any undue advantage upon petitioner. Further, petitioner's right to work and freedom of movement must not be unjustly restricted solely on the existence of the FIR. 8. At this length of time, learned Senior Counsel requests this Court to issue a direction to respondent . except authorities to issue PCC duly mentioning that the present case, there are no cases pending against petitioner, 9.

In the light of the discussion supra and in view of the request made by learned Senior Counsel, the petition Writ is disposed of directing respondenL authorities to issue proceedings by mentioning the present case as stated in the impugned order by adding 'no other cdses are pending dgd inst petitioner except this case'. IO. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed / SD/- MOHD ISMAIL DEPUW REGIS //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, U n of lndia, PSP Division, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Telangana, D. No. 8-2-215 to 219, Near Prashanth Theater, Kummarguda, Secunderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. \ 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Bachupally, Medchal-Malkajgiri I District. 5. One CC to SRl. M VASUDEVA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRl. N BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor Generat of lndia loPUcI 7.

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad. [OUTI 8. Two CD Copies ,_____a HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 291041202G lHE R ( o o t }, z 0 | ltlAY 2026 G) ORDER * l-) WP. No. 11843 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.