THATHAMSETTY NAGENDRA vs THE UNION OF INDIA — WP/14514/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 21st May 2026.
CNR: APHC010281102026
Filing Number
WP/22505/2026
Filing Date
14-May-2026
Registration No
WP/14514/2026
Registration Date
14-May-2026
Judge
Tuhin Kumar Gedela
Coram
Tuhin Kumar Gedela
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
WP ( 28 )
Sub-Category
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS (MISC.MATTERS) ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
WRIT Section
Decision Date
21-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THATHAMSETTY NAGENDRA
Adv. SIDDILINGAM GANESH NANDA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE UNION OF INDIA
-
2.The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Adv. GP FOR HOME
-
3.The Regional Passport office.
-
4.The Railway Kodur (Urban) Police Station,
Adv. GP FOR HOME
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
21-May-2026
Tuhin Kumar GedelaView PDF
Summary of WP 14514/2026 Case: Thathamsetty Nagendra v. Union of India & Ors. | High Court of Andhra Pradesh | 21 May 2026 Decision: The court granted the writ of mandamus directing the Regional Passport Office to renew the petitioner's passport within two weeks. The court held that mere pendency of criminal cases without cognizance taken by a competent magistrate cannot justify passport denial under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. The right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21, and the passport authority's delay in passing orders after the petitioner's reply violated established law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
21-May-2026
Admission (Central Govt.)
Tuhin Kumar Gedela
-
15-May-2026
Tuhin Kumar GedelaView PDF
-
15-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/14514/2026
Summary of WP 14514/2026 Case: Thathamsetty Nagendra v. Union of India & Ors. | High Court of Andhra Pradesh | 21 May 2026 Decision: The court granted the writ of mandamus directing the Regional Passport Office to renew the petitioner's passport within two weeks. The court held that mere pendency of criminal cases without cognizance taken by a competent magistrate cannot justify passport denial under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. The right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21, and the passport authority's delay in passing orders after the petitioner's reply violated established law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts