THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.26587 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court alleging inaction on the part of the respondent-Regional Passport Officer in renewing her Passport bearing File No.HYD-L000731-11 (Passport No.B5938398). On 22.09.2011, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government was permitted to take instructions and file counter-affidavit. Now a detailed counter-affidavit together with documents is filed on 31.10.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition itself is being disposed of. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given first Passport No.B5938398, dated 31.08.2001, and now she seeks renewal of that passport. However, apparently a discrepancy arose in her application filed originally seeking passport in 2001 and now seeking renewal. Earlier she had filed a sworn affidavit stating that she was an orphan and unable to furnish the names of her parents. A Passport was issued to her on that declaration. While seeking renewal, however, the petitioner has mentioned the names of her parents and it is on that count the respondent raised a query in his letter dated 08.06.2011 requiring the petitioner to furnish the Court orders regarding declaration of parents. The petitioner states that she has not received the said communication. However, a copy of the said letter is produced as Annexure-II to the counter-affidavit and the petitioner’s counsel now has express notice thereof. Since the writ petition was filed in September, 2011 alleging inaction, apparently in the absence of knowledge of proceedings of the respondent dated 08.06.2011 referred to above, it is evident that there is no inaction on the part of the respondent as he had acted on the renewal application of the petitioner and required the petitioner to satisfy the query raised in the letter dated 08.06.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, even now, stands by her status as an orphan and since the application for renewal was not been accepted by the computer without the names of the parents, she had to mention the said names. He further states that the petitioner would be satisfied if the renewal of her Passport is considered with the same particulars as granted to her in the original Passport dated 31.08.2001. The documents filed along with the writ petition and the contentions raised are based upon the events prior to the query raised by the respondent in the letter dated 08.06.2011. Admittedly, the petitioner has not responded to the said letter, thereby the respondent could not apply his mind to that. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file her detailed representation/explanation to the query raised by the respondent in the letter dated 08.06.2011, within a period of one week from today by duly quoting the reference number etc., of the renewal application. On such representation being made by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders with regard to renewal of petitioner’s Passport expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J Date: 08.11.2011 Note: Furnish CC in three days B/o. va