[ 3300 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION NO: 25543 OF 2025

Between

Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula, S/o. Mohan Rao Chivukula, Aged

about 38 years, Resident of Plot No.62, Bhavana Colony, Bowenpally,

Secunderabad- 500011, Telangana, Presently Working and residing at 1945,

Noor Street, Wesley Chapel, Tampa Florida 33544, USA, presently in lndia

...PETITIONER

AND

1. Union Of lndia, Joint Secretary (PSP), Central Passport Officer, Ministry of

External Affairs.

2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, D. No.B-2-215 to

219, Kummarguda, Secunderbad - 500003.

3. Dr Nagasarvari Garikapati, W/o. Raghavender Chivukala, Aged 33 years,

Occ. House wife, Flat No.204, SSR Heights, New Nagole, Road no.2, LB

Nagar, Ranga Reddy.

R3 impleaded as per C.O.dt.l1.09.2025 in lA No.2/2025.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased

to issue appropriate Writ, direction, or order more particularly one in the nature of

Writ of Mandamus, by setting aside the letter dt 25-08-2025 refusing to provide

passport services to Petitioner, including the objection of Respondent no 2 ,

dated 1gt}8l2}25 vide Letter Ref. No. OBJ/104987600912025 that on account of

pendency of a Criminal Case Cr. no 285 of 2025 U/s 498-4. 406, 506 IPC'and

Section 3, 4 oI the Dowry Prohibition Ac before the 3rd Additional Civil Judge-cum-

J.M. Ranga Reddy for re -issuing of passport vide application/File number

HY'1075444582825 dated 0510812025, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of

article 14 19,21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent

no 2 to re-issue 01'passport for the application File number HY107 5444582825 dated

05-08-2025 for thr: period of 10 years.

Prayer amended as per C.O.dt.l1.09.2025 in lA No.3/2025.

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in s;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the

respondents to c;onsider the representation dt. 2110812025 and re-issue of passport

for the applicatic,n/ File number HY1O75444582825 dated 05lO8l2O2S for the period

of 10 years, pen,Jing disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for th€, Petitioner: SRI NOOW VASISHTA VENKATESWARLU

Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: Ms. G.SAMPADA,

SC FOR CENTRAL GOW., REP.

SRI N.BHUJANGARAO,

DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA

Counsel for th,e Respondent No.3: SRI S.

SRI S.

SAWAM REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, REP.

The Court made the following: ORDER

L

wp_25s43_2025

NBK, J

IN THE HIGHCOURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON' SRI JUSTICE NAGESH B

WRIT PETITIONo.25543 of 2025

l8'h Ma 2026

Between:

Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula S/o Mohan Rao Chivukula

... Petitioner

AND

1. Union of [ndia, and others

... Respondents

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he

was originally issued Passport No. G-5374369 on 16.10.2007 (valid until

15.10.20t7),by the Passport Office, Bangalore. He traveled to Texas, USA,

in August 2009 for higher studies, completed his PhD at Texas Tech

University, and later secured employment as a Senior Scientist at [ovance

Biotherapeutics in Tampa, Florida. Upon expiry of his earlier passport, he

obtained a renewed passport bearing No. R0895621 on 01.11.2017, at San

Francisco, valid until 31.10.2027. He married Smt. Nagasarvari Garikapati

on 04.02.2022, at which time she was pursuing her PhD at IIT Madras. She

joined him in the United States on23.04.2025, and the couple subsequently

retumed to India on 28.06.2025, to attend her convocation ceremony, with a

planned return journey to the United States scheduled for 27 .07 .2025.

1.1 It is stated that shortly after arriving in Hyderabad, while

traveling from Bowenpally Bus Stop to his residence at Bhavana Colony,

2

wp_2ss43:2025

NBK, J

Secunderabad, the petitioner lost his bag containing his passport and other

belongings. He lodged a complaint on 19.07.2025, at Bowenpally Police

Station. Despite eftbrts by the police, the passport could not be traced, and a

forrnal certilicate to that effect was issued on 21.07.2025. Consequently, he

applied for reissuance of passport on 25.07.2025. As part of the verification

process for passport issuance, the petitioner was irtformed that an FIR had

been registt:red against him by his wife at the Women's police

Station,

Saroornagar; in Crime No. 285 of 2025 under Sections 498-A,406, and 506

of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition

Act,

pending beiore the III Additional Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial

Magistrate First Class at Ranga Reddy. The petitioner states that he

personally visited the respondent's office and submitted a reply to these

objections on 21.08.2025, requesting reconsideration and reissuance of his

passport. However, he was informed orally by the respondent's officials that

passport is not issued when criminal proceedings are pending.

1.2 The petitionerasserts that mere pendency of a criminal case

canriot be a ground for denial of passport under the Passports Act, 1967. He

states that he has cooperated with the investigation, having received notice

under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and duly appeared before the police. It is

stated that. paradoxically, his wife, after initiating criminal proceedings, also

caused a legal notice dated 12.08.2025, issued through her counsel,

demandinl; the petitioner to resume cohabitation, failing which she would

initiate proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1.3 T'he petitioner asserts that the criminal case filed by his wife is

false and motivated, intended to compel him to remain in India and disrupt

his professional life; and that the simultaneous pursuit of criminal charges

3

wp_25543_2025

NBK, J

and a demand for cohabitation is inherently contradictoS. The petitioner

states that the respondent authorities have effectively adopted the stance that

the existence of FIR and pending criminal case justifies withholding

passport reissuance. In contrast, he argues that such a stance is legally

untenable and violates established procedure and constitutional protections.

1.4 It is stated that the petitioner is a research scientist working

onsite in Tampa, Florida, and he is required to be physically present for

research work, and he is required to report back to duty by 23.03.2026,

otherwise there is a chance of losing his employment, apart from the risk of

legal action by his employer in the United States for breach of

confidentiality obligations if he is unable to properly resign. It is also stated

that all his personal and professional belongings, including educational

certiflrcates, vehicle, and household items, remain in the United States.

1.5 The petitioner therefore prays that the authorities may be

directed to consider his representation dated 21.08.2025, and to reissue his

passport, pursuant to Application dated 25.07.2025, and File No.

fry1075444582825 dated 05.08.2025, for a full period of ten years. He

emphasizes that his professional obligations require his physical presence at

a research facility in Tampa, Florida, and that an inability to return to the

United States would result in the loss of his employment and severe

professional, f,rnancial, and legal consequences.

2. A counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No. 3-wife, essentially

contending that the alleged loss of his passport, is a fabricated story

intended to facilitate his departure from India and desertion of the marriage.

She asserts that the petitioner was fully aware of the FIR registered against

him in Crime No. 285 of 2025, had participated in police counselling

sessions, and even acknowledged the same in writing, yet deliberately failed

4

wp_25543_2025

NBK, J

to disclose these facts in his passport application with mala fide intent. The

respondent r:ontends that the pendency of criminal proceedings is a valid

ground for refusal of passport issuance, especially when coupled with

suppression of facts. She further submits that despite her bona fide efforts to

continue tht: matrirnonial relationship, including issuing a legal notice for

restitution rf conjugal rights, the petitioner expressed willingness to

dissolve th,: marriage and allegedly intended to continue an immoral

lifestyle abr:oad. The respondent also makes serious allegations regarding

the petitioner's conduct, including substance abuse, addiction to adult

entertainment, and an incident of physical assault, and states that no genuine

attempts at settlement were made by him. She argues that the petitioner has

alternative remedies, including cooperating with the investigation and trial,

instead of seeking relief through the writ petition. Emphasizing that the

passport authority acted lawfully and in accordance with guidelines in

refusing ir;suance during the pendency of criminal proceedings, she

expresses eLpprehension that granting a passport would enable the petitioner

to flee the country desert heq and cause irreparable harm, and therefore she

prays for dismissal of the writ petition in the interest ofjustice.

3. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, in response to the counter

affidavit c,f respondent No.3 denying that the losing of his passport is

neither a fabricated story nor the petitioner has any intention to desert his

wife, stating that he had in fact purchased return tickets for her to travel

back to the USA, which contradicts the allegation of abandonment. He

further contends that he was unaware of the registration of any FIR until 29-

30 July 2C25, when the police informed his flamily and issued a notice under

Section 35(3) BNSS, and asserts that his passport application was made

prior to g,aining such knowtedge; therefore, there was no suppression of

facts or nrala fide intent. The petitioner also denies deliberately omitting

5

w9_25543_2025

NBK, J

Respondent No. 3 as a party, explaining that the dispute initially concerned

only the passport authority, and her impleadment was subsequently carried

out as directed by the Court. He argues that mere pendency of a criminal

case cannot be a ground to deny passport issuance, relying on judicial

precedents of the Supreme Court and High Court which recognize the right

to hold a passport and travel abroad as part of personal liberty. He contends

that the criminal case against him and his family as motivated and false.

Addressing matrimonial allegations, he denies all claims of immoral

conduct, substance abuse, or assault and reiterates his belief in the

institution of marriage, while alleging that the respondent's actions-

including criminal complaints and communications to passport authorities-

are inconsistent with her claim for restitution of conjugal rights. He

maintains that both parties had travelled to India together for her PhD

convocation and had planned to return to the USA, further negating any

intention to flee. Overall, he asserts that the refusal of passport services is

unjustified, violative of his personal liberty, and prays for appropriate relief.

4.

'Heard

Mr. Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Ms. G. Sampada, learned Standing Counsel representing Mr. N.

Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General; and Mr. S. Satyam Reddy,

learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3-complainant. Perused the

record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner essentially contends that the

petitioner came to India in July 2025 for attending the Convocation of his

wife at IIT Madras, and until then there were no disputes, and suddenly he

came to know of the cases against him when he applied for reissuance of

passport. Learned counsel contends that he is on HIB work visa, employed

at USA in a Research Scientist position working onsite, and the visa is

,,:,,1,

:

6

w9_25543_2025

N8K, J

connected u,ith the employer and that his employment would be at stake if

he does n,f,t go back and work onsite, apart from potential legal

complicatioas from the employer due to breach of employment terms and

lack of prop'er resignation from employment. Learned counsel contends that

his parents lre in lndia and they are old-aged, and also facing severe health

issues, and he is bound to come back regularly"to cater to his parents

wellbeing, ;lrd would also cooperate with the trial proceedings before the

concerned r:riminal Court. Learned counsel relies on Soniya Sawhney D/o

Narinder lSingh Sahney v. The Regional passport

officer, Regional

Passport officet; Kuldeep Singh v. union of India2; Ankam Balaiah v.

The Union of tndia3; Sannith Reddy Mandhadi v. The Union of Indiaa;

Ravi Ramesh v. The union Government of Indias; Dilip Kumar

Agarwal v. Thb Union of India6; Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. union of

IndiaT.

5.1 Learned counsel furnishes an "Affidavit of Undertaking", dated

09.03.202(,, wherein it is stated at paragraphs No.5 and 6 as follows:

"5. I Resp'dctfully submit rhat I Am A Law Abiding citizen of rhis

country And I Have Not committed Any offence what so Ever. My

:.

wife with A view To Harass Me And My Family Members, Lodged A

;t

Fals,e criryinal case. But, I unconditionally Undertake To Appear

Befc,re The criminal court whenever I Am Required ro Appear

Before The said court. I would Act ln Accordance with Law And

wou,ld Not Delay The Prosecution And progress of rhe Griminal

cas,r. since NBW was lssued. Even without raking summons, My

Brother And sister Have Approached rhis Hon'ble court For Their

12010

Lawsuir (Ap) 431

'2o2s :

pHHC

: o6778g(punjab & Haryana High Court)

-MANU

/ tt/ O,9a / 2024

owrit

petition

No.2422 of 2024

twrit

Petition No. 13133 of 2025

swrit

Appeal hlo. 1107 of 2025

'zozs ttrtsc tazs

' rr,l:',..

7

wp 25543 2025

NB& J

Protection. My Father ls Aged 78 Years And A Cancer Survivor And

ls Battting With Several Other Serious Health lssues Requiring

Frequent Hospitalisation And My 73 Year Old Mother Who Has

Undergone Open Heart Surgery Lately And Gets t'iospitalised

Frequently Are Required To Be Taken Care And Have To Be

Monitored By Me Have Also Approached This Hon'ble Court For

Further Protection. Hence, For These Reasons Also, I Would Not Be

Failing To Prove My lnnocence ln The Criminai Case. lWound Not

Make Myself Scarce Or Run Away From The Jurisdiction Of The

Criminal Court, I Would Assure. I Would Also File { Necessary

Undertaking Before The Criminat Court Also To appe{r Before lt

Once ln Every 3 Months And Or At Any Other Time As And When My

Presence ls Needed.

6. Since This Hon'ble Court ls Empowered To Protect The

Fundamental Rights Assured By The Constitution, I Unconditionally

Undertake Hereby, To Abide By What Ever Conditions That This

Hon'ble Court Might lmpose For Grant Of A Passport By UOI In My

Favour. I Need To Be Granted A Pass Port At The Earliest So As To

Enabte Me Secure Revival/ tssuance Of Necessary Permit And VISA

For Returning To My Employment At Tampa, Florida, USA. Any

. Further Time Gap ln Resumption Of Employment By Me Can Land

Me ln lrreparable Loss And tnsurmountabte Grave Consequences

Arising Out Of Breach Of Contract ln USA. Out Of Sheer

Compassion Exhibited By My Project Head And The Senior Leve!

Executives Of The Company, I Am Granted Leave Of Absence Til!

23-03-2026 And lt Woutd Be Nearly lmpossible To Meet Tight Time

Limits For The Results Of Research To Be Published By The

Scientists Employed, Like Me By The Company. ln Mew Of Grave

lmpact On My Right To Lead Life By Pursuing My Employment As A

Scientist, I Pray This Hon'bte Court To GranU lssue Necessary

Directions To The Regional Passport Office To Accord Me A

Passport Within A Week's Time. I Am Duty Bound To Be Grateful To

This Hon'ble Court Ever And Forever."

l

i

i

i

I

:l

i

I

i

I

8

wp_25543_2025

NBK, J

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would essentially contend that

the refusal kr process or grant reissuance of the petitioner's passport is not

arbitrary but strictly in accordance with statutory mandates under the

Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f), which obligates the

Passport Atrthority to refuse issuance when criminal proceedings are

pending befitre a competent court. It is contended.that the petitioner applied .'

for reissue of his passport under File No. HY1075444582825 on

05.08.2025, and that the application was processed on a pre-police

verification basis. However, during verification, the police authorities

submitted an adverse report on 18.08.2025 stating that the an FIR has been

registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 285/2025 under Sections 498-

A, 406, and 506 IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition

Act, and th;lt a charge sheet had already been filed before the III Additional

Civil Judgecum-Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar,

though it v,as yet to be numbered. The respondents further state that, even

prior to thi:; report, the petitioner's spouse (unoffrcial respondent No. 3) had

personally approached the passport office on 11.08.2025, submitting a

complaint letter informing the authority of the registration of FIR No.

28512025 at Saroornagar Police Station under the Rachakonda

Commissi<lnerate, and specif,rcally requesting that the petitioner's existing

Passport l,lo. R0895621 be impounded or that any fresh apptication be

rejected.

6.1 It is contended that, based on these developments, an objection

letter bearing reference dated 19.08.2025, was issued to the petitioner,

requiring him to furnish explanation with regard to suppression of material

information, namely the non-disclosure of the pending criminal

proceedings, in his passport application. The respondents assert that this

omission constitutes a serious procedural lapse on the petitioner's part. [t is

9

wp_25543_202S

NBK, J

contended that, despite issuance of this objection letter, no satisfactory

response has been received from the petitioner addressing the allegation of

suppression.

6.2 It is contended that as per Section 6(2)(D of the Passports Act,

1967, read with Office Memorandumdated 10.10.2019, clarifiesthat where

criminal proceedings are pending, the applicant must obtain a No Objection

Certificate from the concerned Court. It is further contended that if the trial

Court specifies a particular period in the NOC then the passport would be

issued/renewed for such period, and if no period is specifred in the NOC,

then the passport is renewed for a default period of one year. Learned

Standing Counsel relies on the judgment dated 08.04.2024, in Writ Petition

(L) No. 1576 of 2024 by the Bombay High Court, which held that in such

circumstances the applicant must approach the criminal court; and'also the

Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 829 of 2024,

wherein it'was held that directing passport renewal is in contravention of

Section 6(2)(f) is unsustainable in law.

6.3 It is contended that the petitioner has concealed the information

while applying for reissuance of passport, thereby disentitling himself from

equitable relief. [t is further contended that though the petitioner contends

that the matrimonial dispute and criminal case as false and motivated,

essentially is a pending criminal case against the petitioner before the trial

Court, and therefore the passport issuance cannot be processed without an

NOC from the trial Court.It is contended that the argument of urgency or

professional hardship cannot be a ground for deviating/bypassing the settled

legal position.

7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Satyam Reddy appearing on behalf of

the respondent No.3-wife, would essentially contend that certain

10

wp 25543_2025

N8(, J

conciliatory efforts to amicably settle have not fructified as on today,

thereby the l;ituation as on date remains that criminal case is pending against

the petitione'r before the trial Court, and as per the settled legal position vide

the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.l94 of

2026, dated 17.02.2026, the petitioner has to approach the triat Court and

obtain NOC for obtaining passport. It is also contended that in W.A. No.829

of 2024, dated 12.07.2024,, the Hon'ble Division Bench, while granting

liberty to ttre petitioner therein to approach the concerned Criminal Court,

quashed tht: order passed by the learned single Judge directing renewal of

passport, b'1 holding that such a direction is not sustainable in the eye of

law, and th':refore prays that the petitioner may be directed to approach the

concerned trial Court for obtaining necessary NOC for reissuance of his

passport.

8. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record,

it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in

w.A.No.19t4 of 2026, dated 17.02.2026, by referring ro Section 6(2)(f) of

the Passports Act, 1967, and GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, and the office

Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, and also the precedent judgments in

Mahesh K.umar Agarwal v. Union of India8, and Nidhi Agarwal v. Union

of Indiae, held as follows:

"13. ln the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court

conr:erning the interpretation of GsR 570(E) dated 25.0g.1993 and

offir;e Memorandum dated 10.i0.2019, we are of the considered

vieu'that the appellant should make an application for seeking Noc

fronr the concerned trial courts where criminal cases are pending

against him. lt is upon issuance of NoG that the appettant shoutd

t2025

SCC On

jne

sc 2887

'2025 scc on -ine TS 1778

',., .

11

wp_25541_2025

NBK, J

file an application for renewal of the passport. ln casb the courts

prescribe a period for which the passport is to be issued, the

passport authority should honour that period. Othenrise, if it does

not stipulate any period, the notification provides default rules,

inctuding issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily ohe year, in

appropriate cases.

14. Since the passport of the appellant is going to expire on

28.02.2026, the appellant is at liberty to make an application for

issuance of NOC from the concerned courts within this week. lf

such an application is made before the learned courts, the learned

courts would endeavour to take it up expeditiously, preferably

within a week, and pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties.

tt is for the appellant to seek renewal of passport based upon such

NOC before the Regional Passport Authority. Needless to say, the

Regional Passport Authority would consider the request of

extension in accordance with law i.e., the Passports Act, 1967, GSR

. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and Office Memorandum dated f0.10.2019

applicable to the case on hand."

9. .Admittedly, a case in FIR No. 285 of 2025 is registered against the

petitioner, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506

of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Further, as per the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents, investigation is completed in the said case and charge sheet has

been filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court, i.e., III Additional Civil

Judge-cum-Ill Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ranga Reddy,

and the same is yet to be numbered, and therefore criminal proceedings are

pending against the petitioner.

10. Therefore, in light of the orders dated 17.02.2026 passed by the

Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.l94 of 2026, the petitioner is required

rirr:

t2

wp_25543_2025

NBI(, J

to approach the trial Court and file appropriate application seeking No

Objection Cr:rtificate (NOC) for reissuance lrenewal of passport.

lt. Furthcq considering the urgency expressed by the learned counsel for

the petitione r, in view of the nature of employment of the petitioner and his

requirement to physically report and work onsite at USA by 23.03.2026, and

also the Affidavit of Undertaking dated 09.03.2026 filed by him before this

Court stating that the petitioner would appear before the trial Court once in

three months or as and when directed by the trial Court, the petitioner is

granted liherty to approach the trial Court and file appropriate

applicationlbrthwith, seeking NOC for reissu ance I renewal of passport for

ten years, by enclosing the said documents before the trial Court.

tl.l Upon filing such application and relevant documents, including

the Affidavit of Undertaking, the trial Court shall consider the same and

pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably on the same day, as per

law. Thereafteq upon the petitioner furnishing the NoC, the passport

authority s'rall consider the same for reissuance lrenewal of passport of the

petitioner, in accordance with law.

12. [t is made clear that the NOC for reissuanee / renewal of passport

shall not lrc construed as a permission to travel abroad. If the petitioner

intends to travel abroad, he is required to make a separate application before

the trial C,tut-t stating the purpose and duration of travel, and the trial Court

shall conr;ider the same on its own merits by imposing appropriate

conditions, as deemed necessary if permission is being granted. The trial

Court shall proceed in accordance with law to secure the presence of the

petitioner for the purpose of trial in the pending criminal proceedings, if any

of the corrditions so imposed while granting abroad travel permission is

violated.

To,

BSR

13

wp_25543-2025

NBK, J

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous

petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/. NA

STANT

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Joint Secretary, (psp) Central passport

Affairs, Union Of lndia.

Ministry of External

2,. The Regional Passport officer, Regional passport

office, D. No.g-2_21s to

219, Kummarguda, Secunderbad - 500003.

3' The lll Additional Civil Judge-cum-ltl Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class at Ranga Reddy.

4- one cc to sRl Noory VAS|SHTA VENKATESWARLU, Advocate lopuc]

5. One CC to SRI S.RANGA RAO, Advocate tOpUCI

6- one cc to SRt N.BHUJANGA RAo, DEpury solrctroR GENERTAL oF

lNDlA, High court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad topucl

7. Two CD Copies

r.'i.:' ..' :.:'

r .: '_.i:et;;:::::

I

I

I

HIGH COI,'RT

DATED: 181031202G

ORDER

WP.No.25543 of 2025

DISPOSTNG OF THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

CC TODAY

1t{t SI4

t

o

t,18 IIf,ff 202[

C.

*.r

:q

{r:

vlrl,o