Again a fundamental rule to be followed who are seeking a writ of Mandamus from a High Court. First seek justice for the Concerned authority against whom the Writ is being prayed for. Once that stage is exhausted (successfully or otherwise), the litigant is good for filing the writ of mandamus.
AP HC also held so in the case here.
After the High Court of AP granted stay on all further investigation here, State went to Apex Court challenging the Stay order.
Diary No.- 20400 – 2020
On 25-Nov-2020, Supreme Court has Stayed the High Court gag order alone. Rest of the Order remain as it is.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
The Petitioner is the Secretary of Mundadugu Praja Party from Visakhapatnam. She alleged that there is rampant phone tapping going on against VVIPs and Judges of High Court of AP.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
Even though this PIL petition was dismissed, the Division bench made a valuable comment, that Demanding of Justice from Concerned Authority in Govt is a Must before Seeking a Writ of Mandamus from a High Court.
Here is the snippet from the 2-page dismissal Order.
Besides this in para 7 of the writ petition a categorical statement has been made that the petitioner had not made any representation to the Government, meaning thereby, that the petitioner before making prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus by way of PIL, has not demanded justice before the authority concerned. This is the condition precedent for invoking Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner has not demanded any justice from the authority concerned. In the writ petition only vague submissions were made. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file amendment petition. Subsequently, one interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1 of 2020 was filed for amendment, which was itself defective and the same was dismissed on 24.02.2020. While dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2020, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with relevant documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after order, dated 24.02.2020, the petitioner has filed another interlocutory application vide I.A.No.2 of 2020, in which he made it clear to amend the writ petition by adding para 4(2) to para 4 (2) (k). In support of so called amendment petition, an affidavit has also been filed. Even after going through the amendment petitions, it is clear that no assertion has been made regarding approaching the authority concerned for demanding justice and directly this writ petition was filed. Considering the fact that the writ petition was filed with vague statements and also without approaching the authority concerned, we are of the opinion that such writ petition even as PIL may not be entertained.
Recently, Allahabad HC also held this same rule here.
Division Bench of Bombay High Court has passed the following directions to Passport Authorities, regarding renewal of passport, wherein Magistrate has given permission to do so.
6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue.
10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate’s court has directed that the passports may be renewed as per the “Rules”.
Here are the directions…
11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions :-
(a) In all cases where the Magistrate’s court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other
than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All
qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for atleast ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants atleast for ten years.
(b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the
additional booklet to the same passport provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad.
(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the passport
shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport
of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned.
Another good judgment based on landmark rulings from DB of Bombay High Court as well as Apex Court, on renewal of a Passport for full term of 10 years.
6. In view of the directions given by this Court in the said judgment, therefore, the Respondents were duty bound to follow the said directions and ought to have renewed thepassport for a period of ten years. It has to be borne in mind that whenever a criminal complaint is pending against an applicant, who wishes to travel abroad, the Magistrate alone has a jurisdiction to impose conditions regarding his right to travel abroad. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the Applicant should not be permitted to travel abroad, he can reject his application. However, when an application is made forrenewal of passport, the Passport Authorities have to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It appears that the Central Government has issued a Notification by exercising a power vested in them under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and in the said Notification, it has been mentioned that the passport can be renewed for a period of one year. There being an ambiguity under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Notification issued by the Passport Authorities, this Court was pleased to clarify the said ambiguity in the case of Narendra Ambwani (supra). The Passport Authorities do not have the right to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad or not and that right is vested in the Magistrate, who can impose condition if an application is made, seeking permission to travel abroad. The Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : 1978 SCR (2) 621)] has held that the right to travel for the purpose of business and service is a part of a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions, which are imposed by the Act and by the Court. In the present case, the Applicant on account of his service as a Flight Person has to travel abroad continuously and there is no possibility of absconding since he has to return back along with the fight. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we direct the Passport Authorities to renew the passport for a period of 10 years. It is clarified that, however, the Applicant will have to apply to the Magistrate seeking permission to travel abroad. If such an application is made, the Magistrate may impose such conditions as deem ft and proper.”
The following is the interim Stay order granted by High Court of AP against all further investigation into the alleged Land scam. A gag order was also passed by the Court in reporting on this case to all media as well as Social Media, since the alleged complaint implicates the two girl-children of sitting Supreme Court Judge.
WP.16468/2020
As is usual, the Stay order was challenged at Supreme Court and the gag order was Stayed by Supreme Court here.
Finally, the false cases were quashed like dirt and thrown out of window. Now, as is the tradition, the cabal will move the Division Bench and then beg at SCI.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
The major-daughter here tried to grab maintenance from father under 125 CrPC showing that father has such responsibility under HAMA. Supreme Court said no-no.
Kantamneni Ravi Shankar, MD of TeluguOne media organization was booked in a baseless crime by AP CID and then Single-judge bench sufficiently gave lecture to the Police on Duties of Police.
4 months earlier, Anticipatory Bail was also granted to this Petitioner:
The genesis of this and such nonsensical false criminal cases is this GO:
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
Advocate Ashwani Kumar Upadhyaya had filed this Writ Petition way back in 2016 (2016-09-06) and still the Supreme Court is working on it.
On 2020-03-05:
A 13-column format was finalized to be filled by High Courts, as not many High Courts supplied Amicus with required information. Amicus email id is given wherein the Crime data was to be sent.
On 2020-08-31:
On 2020-09-10:
Submission of the Amicus Curiae:
Order from Court:
On 2020-09-16:
Directions were passed to CJs of High Courts for monitoring and expediting the disposal of the criminal cases.
On 2020-10-06:
Supplementary Submission of the Amicus Curiae:
On 2020-11-02:
Supplementary Submission (12th Report) of the Amicus Curiae:
On 2020-11-02:
Further directions were passed by the Court
On 2021-08-10:
In view of the law laid down by this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that no prosecution against a sitting or former M.P./M.L.A. shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court in the respective suo-motu writ petitions registered in pursuance of our order dated 16.09.2020. The High Courts are requested to examine the withdrawals, whether pending or disposed of since 16.09.2020, in light of guidelines laid down by this Court.
On 2021-08-11:
The table given in previous day order was amended to include new column, ‘Whether Video Conferencing facility is available’.
On 2021-08-25:
This is the 14th Status Report by Amicus Curiae:
Here is the Order passed.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1442 access attempts in the last 7 days.
