(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Rejection Order No.MAS-POL-007409 (MA2075995945123) dated 17.02.2026 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner’s passport re-issue Application No.MA2075995945123 dated 22.11.2023, and the impugned Appellate Order No.VIII/402/App-91/2026 dated 11.05.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent, and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to re-issue the passport to the petitioner by considering his Application No.MA2075995945123 dated 22.11.2023 in accordance with law, within such time as this Court may be pleased to fix.)

This writ petition has been filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the first respondent and the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the third respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner and consequently to direct the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 22.11.2023 in accordance with law.

2.1 Upon hearing the petitioner appearing in person and perusing the materials available on record, the case of the petitioner is that he was originally issued a passport bearing No.A3849704 on 14.10.1997. While this passport was valid, another passport bearing No.E8804435 was issued by the Regional Passport Office, Trichy, on 29.03.2004, without the petitioner’s knowledge. The petitioner left for Japan using the latter document on 06.09.2004. Upon realising the error while abroad, the petitioner disclosed his original passport and returned to India.

                          2.2 Consequent to this incident, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Crime No.92 of 2009. He was prosecuted before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – 02, Dwarka, New Delhi and was initially remanded to prison before being released on bail. The petitioner subsequently approached the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – 02, Dwarka, New Delhi, by way of plea bargaining during a special sitting on 09.07.2011. Upon the petitioner admitting the crime, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 419 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC) and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone along with fine of Rs.3,500/- for each offence; and for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 12 of the Passports Act, the petitioner was sentenced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence. The petitioner duly paid the fine amounts. The said Court also clarified by an order dated 13.07.2010 that it had no objection to the renewal of the petitioner’s passport, provided it was otherwise permissible under the rules.

                          2.3 Under these circumstances, the issue regarding the acquisition of the second passport had long been settled and the petitioner has since been using only his valid passport (No.A3849704). Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application dated 22.11.2023 for the renewal of his passport, which was rejected by the impugned order passed by the first respondent. The rejection was based on a discreet inquiry conducted by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, which revealed that the petitioner had applied for and obtained three different passports. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this rejection, which was disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 11.05.2026 on the following terms:

                          8. And now, therefore, having gone through all the records and in the light of the full facts and circumstances of the case, I, as the Appellate Authority, as per the provisions u/s 11 of the Passports Act, 1967, decide the appeal as under:-

                          i. The appellant i.e. Shri Nandakumar Lingadass has admitted that he knowingly obtained multiple passports with different identity and by suppression of the material information. Therefore, PO is directed to revoke all the passports held by the appellant.

                          ii. The appellant is directed to re-apply for passport with his correct personal particulars with the prescribed fee and the documents. Upon receipt of such passport application, the PO may re-issue the passport subject to Clear Police report and usual checks and procedures.

                          iii. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

3. The petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that out of the three passports mentioned in the impugned order, the third passport is in the name of one Selvakumar Chidambaram, with whom the petitioner has no connection. He contended that though his biometric credentials or photograph may match, he was in no way involved in the issuance of the passport to Selvakumar Chidambaram on 04.03.2004. Regarding the other two passports, he submitted that the first passport, issued in 1997, carries his correct name ‘Lingadass Nandakumar’ and therefore, poses no impediment to re-issuance. With reference to the second passport, which was issued in the name of ‘Rajasekar Lingadas’ he contended that it should not form the basis of denying him renewal benefits.

4. Per contra, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 & 5, relying upon the counter-affidavit, submitted that detailed background checks were conducted upon receiving the petitioner’s renewal application due to his history of criminal cases. The check revealed that the petitioner had suppressed the existence of the two previous passports in his application form bearing MASB05937897 and TRY02910806. Furthermore, upon adjudication, it was found that the biometric credentials for passport No.TRYA02055104 matched the petitioner’s, even though the name was registered as Selvakumar Chidambaram and featured a different photograph. In view of the these findings, the original authority rejected the application and the Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to re-apply with accurate particulars so that a detailed investigation could be conducted.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by both sides.

6. The Appellate Authority has held that if the petitioner applies afresh with accurate particulars, the application will be considered subject to due police verification. The petitioner contended that since he submitted his application in 2023, he should not have to undergo the process of filing a fresh application, maintaining that he has a right to have his passport renewed. Generally, a citizen has a right to the re-issuance and renewal of their petitioner. However, during the inquiry by the original authority, it was established that the petitioner had operated under different names and possessed different sets of passports, for which he had previously pleaded guilty and paid fines. Since different identities were involved, it is proper to assess the issue afresh through a thorough police verification report. The petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced by the order of the Appellate Authority.

7. In view of the fact that the Appellate Authority has already granted relief by permitting the petitioner to re-apply with correct particulars, the Passport Officer is directed to re-issue the passport subject to a clear verification report. Consequently, this is not a fit case for interference with the impugned orders.

8. Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application, disclosing all three prior passport issues and referencing the order of the Appellate Authority. The Passport Authority shall accord the petitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing to explain the previous facts of the case before a decision is reached. It is made clear that any adverse police report concerning the specific offences to which the petitioner has already pleaded guilty cannot be used against him again and the petitioner may produce the relevant judgments of the Criminal Court in Delhi to substantiate this.

9. With reference to the newly registered FIR in Crime No.0048 of 2026, it is noted that this case concerns the alleged misuse of the petitioner’s biometric credentials for the passport issued in the name of Selvakumar Chidambaram. Therefore, this Court will not interfere with that ongoing investigation. However, regarding the passports issued under the names of ‘Shri Lingadass Nandakumar and Shri Rajasekar Lingadas, these were already the subject matter of prosecution in Delhi under FIR No.92 of 2009, in which the petitioner pleaded guilty.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the petitioner is directed to apply afresh. Upon receipt of such application, the first respondent or the appropriate Regional Passport Authority is directed to consider the same expeditiously, and in any event, not later than three (3) months for the date of the application.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.