logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 3506 print Preview print Next print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.P. (MD) No. 14246 of 2026 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 10665 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Parties : Arunkumar Versus The Regional Passport Officer, Office of the Regional Passport Office Madurai & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V. Karuna, Advocate. For the Respondent: R2, A. Albert James, Government Advocate, R1, S. Sundarapandian, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 21-05-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 226 of Constitution of India

2. Catch Words:
- Writ of Certiorari
- Mandamus
- Passport re‑issue
- FIR
- Charge Sheet
- Judicial Magistrate permission

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus for the re‑issuance of his passport (File No. MD507668265026 dated 11‑05‑2026). Both parties consented to dispose of the petition at the admission stage. The Regional Passport Officer argued that an adverse police report barred re‑issuance, while the second respondent highlighted a pending criminal case (Crime No. 205 of 2020) with a charge sheet yet to be taken on file. The court held that mere pendency of an FIR does not justify denial of passport re‑issuance; the petitioner must obtain court permission before traveling abroad once the charge sheet is filed. Accordingly, the first respondent was directed to re‑issue the passport within four weeks, and the petitioner was instructed to seek judicial permission before leaving India. No costs were awarded and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings dated 11.05.2026 and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to re-issue the passport for a period of 10 years, re issue application submitted by the petitioner in file No.MD507668265026, dated 11.05.2026 on the file of the first respondent herein.)

1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to re-issue the passport to the petitioner with reference to File No.MD507668265026 dated 11.05.2026.

2. Mr.S.Sundarapandian, learned counsel takes notice for R1 and Mr.A.Albert James, learned Government Advocate takes notice for R2.

3. By consent on either sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Regional Passport Officer would submit that the orders are not passed in view of the adverse police report against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would submit that a case in Crime No.205 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner on the file of the Pudhupatti Police Station and after investigation now the Charge Sheet is also filed and the same is yet to be taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.

6. It is already decided by this Court that mere pendency of the FIR cannot be treated as a criminal case so as to withhold the re-issue of passport and as and when the Charge Sheet is taken on file, it is only required of the petitioner to take the permission of the concerned Court before leaving abroad.

7. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:-

                   (i) The first respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner dated 11.05.2026 and re-issue the passport in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order without waiting for the certified copy of the order.

                   (ii) If the petitioner wants to leave abroad, the petitioner has to file an application before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and only after taking permission, the petitioner can leave to abroad.

8. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal