High Court: Single Parent’s Nod Not Hyderabad, Nov 13

Hyderabad:In a significant case, the Telangana High Court viewed that the single parent’s approval was not required to obtain a passport for minor children, where such single parent had shown no interest in their welfare and had not fulfilled parental duties.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the High Court also said that the children’s right to travel abroad with their maternal grandparents could not be refused by the single parent.

The judge was dealing with a petition stating that the Regional Passport Office (RPO) in Hyderabad had withheld issuance of passports to the minors on the ground that their father had not provided consent. The petitioner informed the court that his daughter, mother of the children, had died on October 31, 2020. Since then, the minor children had been the care of the petitioner and his wife. He submitted that he had filed a plaint seeking guardianship of the minors, which was pending adjudication.

According to the petitioner, the RPO initially accepted his applications for the issuance of the passports to the minor children, but later insisted on the father’s consent, citing provisions of the Passport Manual, 2020. The petitioner contended before the court that obtaining such consent was impossible, as the father had refused unless the grandparents handed over the deceased mother’s property and jewellery.

The petitioner argued that the father had neglected his parental duties, which was recorded by the Family Court while awarding interim maintenance to the minors.

The father opposed the petition, asserting his status as the natural guardian and arguing that the petitioner, being the maternal grandfather, had no legal authority to apply for passports without his approval. He claimed that the petitioner had suppressed facts and that the Passport Manual mandated parents’ consent or a court order when a guardianship case is pending.

The Regional Passport Officer submitted that since the guardianship petition was pending, the passport applications were kept on hold pending either the father’s consent or a formal guardianship order.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka took note of the memorandum dated May 16, 2025, issued by the ministry of external affairs, which modified Annexure C and D of the Passport Manual to remove the term “legal guardian”. The judge observed that there was no legal prohibition preventing the issuance of passports to minors and that the father had failed to demonstrate genuine interest in their welfare.

Citing the children’s right to travel and the need to ensure their welfare, Justice Bheemapaka held that the father’s refusal could not override the minors’ interests, particularly when the grandparent has been acting as their primary caretaker.needed for minor’s passport

HC Reprimands State Over Manikonda Lands

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Thursday came down heavily on the state government for years of delay in responding to petitions seeking the registration of land in the extent of about 1,652 acres in Survey No. 78 of Manikonda Jagir village.

The court remarked that this was a classic example of the government’s attitude and asked: “How can we dispose of the pending cases, when the government delays for four years.” Citing the Supreme Court judgment in ‘lshwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal’, where the apex court had said "Courts shall not grant adjournments in a routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause delay in dispensing of justice”, the High Court said that it would not permit more than three adjournments.

The Supreme Court in February 2022 had declared that the entire extent of land was vested with the state government and free from encumbrances. Several petitions have been filed before the High Court by individuals claiming some portions of the land.

On several occasions, the court gave time to the government to file its counters on the petitions. As no counter had been filed by the government, the bench headed by Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar called for the presence of Advocate-General A. Sudershan Reddy to know the stand of the government and whether the land was included in the prohibitory list or not.

The default of the appearance by the Advocate-General and lack of information from the government elicited the court’s displeasure. The court asked that when the land was vested with the government by the Supreme Court, why was the government delaying filing its counters.

When the court reserved orders and went on to hear other cases, Advocate General Sudershan Reddy appeared before the court. The court faulted him for being insensitive to the court’s concerns and posed questions on the failure to file counters and the lack of information from the government side. On the request of the AG, the court gave the government time to file counters.

HC irked over govt for delay in filing counters

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court on Thursday came down heavily on the state government for years of delay in responding to petitions seeking the registration of land in the extent of about 1,652 acres in Survey No. 78 of Manikonda Jagir village.

The court remarked that this was a classic example of the government’s attitude and asked: “How can we dispose of the pending cases, when the government delays for four years.” Citing the Supreme Court judgment in ‘lshwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal’, where the apex court had said "Courts shall not grant adjournments in a routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing of justice”, the High Court said that it would not permit more than three adjournments.

The Supreme Court in February 2022 had declared that the entire extent of land was vested with the state government and free from encumbrances. Several petitions have been filed before the High Court by individuals claiming some portions of the land.

On several occasions, the court gave time to the government to file its counters on the petitions. As no counter had been filed by the government, the bench headed by Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar called for the presence of Advocate-General A. Sudershan Reddy to know the stand of the government and whether the land was included in the prohibitory list or not.

The default of the appearance by the Advocate-General and no information on the government`s , elicited the court’s displeasure. The court asked that when the land was vested with the government by the Supreme Court, why was the government delaying in filing its counters.

When the court reserved orders and went on to hear other cases, Advocate General Sudershan Reddy appeared before the court. The court faulted him for being insensitive to the court’s concerns and posed questions on the failure to file counters and the lack of information from the government side. On the request of the AG, the court time to file counters.