Akash v. The Regional Passport Officer

O R D E R By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issuance of the Passport based on the petitioner's application in File No. TR2066534687426, dated

12.03.2026..

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made application dated 12.03.2026 for issuance of passport, whileso, the petitioner received the impugned communication calling upon the petitioner to provide suitable explanation regarding the pendancy of the criminal case, pursuant to which, the petitioner gave his explanation on 29.06.2026, however, there is no response. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and that similar issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2023 dated

02.06.2023.

4.It is seen from the record that, as against the petitioner, a criminal case in Cr. No. 50 of 2025 for offences under Sections 121, 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 303(2) of BNSS 2023, is pending and the case is under investigation. Hence, the respondent issued the impugned communication and further submitted that it is only a communication calling for an explanation from the petitioner.

5.The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. Similar issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2023 [The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai Vs. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and another] dated 02.06.2023, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: ''5. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 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.''

6.Following the decision cited supra, this Court directs the respondent to process the application of the petitioner without insisting the permission of the Court, where the criminal case is pending against the petitioner and take appropriate decision, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner wants to travel abroad, then the petitioner has to get necessary permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending against the petitioner.

¶7With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

03.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN To

¶1The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, New Municipal Complex, Thillai Nagar, 7th Cross, Tiruchirappalli – 620 018.

¶2The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vallathirakottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

M.DHANDAPANI

,J.

PKN DATED : 03.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Akash ... Petitioner(s) vs. 1. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, New Municipal Complex, Thillai Nagar, 7th Cross, Tiruchirappalli – 620 018. 2. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vallathirakottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issuance of the Passport based on the petitioners application in File No. TR2066534687426, dated 12.03.2026. For Petitioner : Mr. D.Rameshkumar For R1 : Mr.C.Shanmugasundaram, CGSC For R2 : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Crl. side)