Naga Lingam v. The Regional Transport Officer

ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned clarification under Letter Ref. No. SCN/1055330576/26, dated 06.06.2026 and to quash the same as unwarranted and unlawful and further direct the first respondent herein to issuance of Passport under File No. MD2076828399426, dated 14.05.2026 to the petitioner herein, within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶2Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Devarajan, 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, a charge sheet has been filed in S.T.C.No.340 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District 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 clarification under Letter Ref. No. SCN/1055330576/26, dated 06.06.2026 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.

¶8With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

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

1.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Bharathi Ula Road, Near Thaamarai Thotti Bus Stop, Kk Nagar, Ramaond Reserve Line, Madurai - 625 002.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vellichanthai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

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 Naga Lingam ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Bharathi Ula Road, Near Thaamarai Thotti Bus Stop, Kk Nagar, Ramaond Reserve Line, Madurai - 625 002. 2.State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Vellichanthai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned clarification under Letter Ref. No. SCN/1055330576/26, dated 06.06.2026 and to quash the same as unwarranted and unlawful and further direct the 1st respondent herein to issuance of Passport under File No. MD2076828399426, dated 14.05.2026 to the petitioner herein, within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin For Respondents : Mr.A.Devarajan (R1) Central Government Standing Counsel : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz (R2) Government Advocate (Criminal Side)