Karthika v. Regional Passport Officer

ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to renew the petitioner's husband, Sathiyaraj passport bearing No. N0715330 based on the petitioner's representation dated 7.03.2026 in accordance with law.

¶2With the consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

¶3Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the documents placed on record

¶4According to the petitioner, the petitioner's husband is working at Dubai and the passport is expiring on 20.03.2026. The petitioner applied for renewal of the passport to the authority on 20.01.2026 through online portal. Further, based on pre-police verification, the respondent sought for NOC / Acquittal order from the concerned court along with dully filled out GSR 570(E) form from petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband undertakes to return to India for appearance in the criminal case and to defend the same, hence this Writ Petition has been filed. Page3 of 6

¶5Perusal of the case reveals that the petitioner's passport application retained by the respondent seeking NOC / Acquittal order from the concerned court. At this juncture, it is relevant for this Court to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai Vs. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and another [W.A.No.902 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023] and the relevant portions of the decision reads as under: "3. Learned counsel for the writ appellant submits that the learned Single Judge of this Court has not taken into consideration Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 in its correct perspective. The passport cannot be issued to a person to travel abroad, if the criminal case is pending against him. This aspect needs to be considered.

¶4We would be guided by the judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017 (Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation) dated 27.9.2021. The said case also relates to renewal of the passport. In the present case also, application of the first respondent is for renewal of the passport.

¶5A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom Page4 of 6 1992, to which one of us (S.V.Gangapurwala, CJ.) was a party, has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, supra and directed the respondent therein to process the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport.

¶6The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent cannot travel abroad without the permission of the Court where the criminal case is pending, would not be an impediment for the passport authority to consider the application for renewal of the passport. No doubt, if the first respondent has to travel abroad and the criminal case is pending, then unless the Magistrate or the Sessions Court where the criminal case is pending permits the first respondent to travel abroad, he cannot travel abroad.

¶7In the light of the above, we pass the following order:

(i) The writ appellant shall process the application of the first respondent for renewal of passport without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the first respondent. If the first respondent is travelling abroad, then the first respondent would be required to seek permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending.

(ii) Decision shall be taken as above, within one month." Page5 of 6

¶6The facts of the present case on hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the first respondent shall issue the passport to the petitioner without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. If the petitioner is travelling abroad, then, she would be required to seek permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending and the said exercise shall be completed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above terms. 12-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order ssd To

¶1The Regional Passport officer Chennai Royala Towers, No.2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No. 785 New No. 158 Anna Salai Chennai 02

¶2The Inspector of Police Viruthachalam Police station, Viruthachalam , Cuddalore Page6 of 6

M.DHANDAPANI, J. ssd 12-03-2026

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Karthika W/o. Sathyaraj, No. 68 East Street, Manavalanallur, Viruthachalam Taluk, Cuddalore district ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Regional Passport officer Chennai Royala Towers, Nos.2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No. 785 New No. 158, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002 2. The Inspector of Police Viruthachalam Police station, Viruthachalam, Cuddalore ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to renew the petitioner's husband Mr.Sathiyaraj passport bearing No. N0715330 based on the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2026 in accordance with law For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Selvam For Respondent(s): Mr.Subba Ranga Bharathi for R1 Mr.V.Meghanathan for R2 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page2 of 6