Sharook Sherife v. The Regional Passport Officer

ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned show cause notice issued by the first respondent dated 29.05.2023 and consequently to direct the first respondent to issue the passport in passport Application Reference No.26-1063152692 based on the petitioner's application dated 29.06.2026 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶2Heard Mr. N.Kamesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R.M.Arun Swaminathan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent, and Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent.

¶3By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made application for issuance of a fresh passport, while so, the petitioner received the impugned communication calling upon the petitioner to provide suitable explanation regarding the pendency of the criminal case. 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.

¶5It is seen from the record that, as against the petitioner, criminal cases have been registered and hence the first respondent issued the impugned communication and further submitted that it is only a communication calling for explanation from the petitioner.

¶6The 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.''

¶7Following the decision cited supra, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned communication. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice issued by the first respondent dated 29.05.2023 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.

¶8With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TSG To

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Claret Plaza, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai City.

M.DHANDAPANI, J. TSG

17.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.(MD).No.15004 of 2026 Sharook Sherife ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Claret Plaza, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai City. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned show cause notice issued by the first respondent dated 29.05.2023 and quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent to issue the passport in passport Application Reference No. 26-1063152692 based on the petitioner's application dated 29.06.2026 within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kamesh For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan (R1) Central Government Standing Counsel : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz (R2) Government Advocate (Criminal Side)