Thayanithy Paranjothi v. The Regional Passport Officer

ORDER By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus and quash the order of the first respondent in Letter Reference No.REM/1055499755/2026 dated 17.06.2026 and to direct the first respondent to issue passport to the petitioner in accordance with law.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made application dated 26.05.2025 for issuance of passport, while so, the petitioner received the impugned communication calling upon the petitioner to provide suitable explanation regarding the pendency of the criminal case, pursuant to which, the petitioner gave his explanation in person, 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 Crime No.137 of 2018 is pending and the case is under investigation and hence the first respondent issued the impugned communication and further submitted that it is only a communication calling for 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 is inclined to set aside the impugned communication. Accordingly, the communication in Letter Reference No.REM/1055499755/2026 dated 17.06.2026 of the first respondent is set aside. The first respondent is directed 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.

7.With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

07.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ps To

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Pass Office, Tiruchirappalli, New Municipal Complex, Thillainagar, 7th Cross, Tiruchirappalli District.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, The Inspector of Police, Peravurani Police Station, Thanjavur District.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. ps

07.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P(MD)No.13983 of 2026 Thayanithy Paranjothi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Pass Office, Tiruchirappalli, New Municipal Complex, Thillainagar, 7th Cross, Tiruchirappalli District. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, The Inspector of Police, Peravurani Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.137 of 2018). ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Letter ref No.REM/1055499755/2026 dated 17.06.2026 passed by the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direction directing the Respondent No.1 to issue Passport to the petitioner vide file No.TR1065081277425 within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh For Respondents : Mr..R.Mohamed Riyaz (R2) Government Advocate (Criminal Side)