(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call of the records pertaining to the impugned order in File No.CB2084995763026 dated 27.04.2026 passed by 1st respondent and quash the same further direct the 1st respondent and quash the same further direct the 1st respondent to issue the petitioner’s online application for issuance of police clearance certificate (PCC) by considering her application dated 24.01.2026 within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.)

1. This Writ Petition is for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 27.04.2026 and to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to allow the petitioner’s online application for a Police Clearance Certificate by considering her application, dated 24.01.2026.

2. The petitioner states that her father, Devendran, is an Indian citizen. Her mother, Kalaivani, is a Sri Lankan national. To escape Tamil persecution in Sri Lanka, in 1990 the petitioner’s mother, Kalaivani, came as a refugee from Mannar Mattakalappu to Rameshwaram, along with her father and sister. At that time, the petitioner’s mother was 6 years old. Since the petitioner’s great-grandmother, Palaniamma, was at the refugee camp in Salem, the petitioner’s mother was also sent there. She received her education in Salem.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father and mother fell in love and married on 11.12.2005. The petitioner was born on 11.09.2006 at HKM Hospital, Salem. Until 2020, the petitioner’s parents were residing at the refugee camp in Salem.

4. The petitioner completed her Higher Secondary Examination and aspired to become a doctor. The petitioner’s parents strived hard and secured a medical seat for her at UNPAZ College of Medicine, University of Peace (UNPAZ), in Timor-Leste for the Academic Year 2025.

5. The petitioner originally applied and was granted a passport bearing No.X6983576, dated 23.03.2023. Thereafter, she applied for a Police Clearance Certificate vide PCC Application No.CB2084923339725 on 01.07.2025 and submitted her passport for the above purpose. Upon receipt of an adverse police report, the Regional Passport Officer, Coimbatore, forwarded the passport to the Regional Passport Officer, Trichirappalli. The adverse police report states that a criminal case in Cr.No.213 of 2023 was pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thammampatti Police Station, Salem District, against the parents of the petitioner in relation to obtaining a fraudulent Indian passport in the name of the mother of the petitioner, for the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 12Aa, 12Ab, 12(2) and 12(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. It is the further case of the petitioner that the parents of the petitioner, the accused in the above case, have already filed Crl.O.P.No.2645 of 2024 on the file of this Court to quash the First Information Report, and an interim order of stay of investigation has been granted, and the matter is pending.

6. Thereafter, the Regional Passport Officer, Coimbatore, issued a show cause notice dated 14.07.2025, directing the petitioner to show cause why the passport should not be impounded. The petitioner appeared before the authority and explained that her father is an Indian citizen, her mother is a refugee, and the petitioner is an Indian citizen entitled to the passport. However, there was no positive response. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.(MD).No.33512 of 2025. By judgment, dated 11.12.2025, this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders thereon.

7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s passport was reissued on 22.01.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner again applied for a Police Clearance Certificate on 24.01.2026. However, the application was kept pending, and the petitioner filed W.P.No.7719 of 2026. This Court, by the order, dated 02.03.2026, directed the respondents to consider the said application. When the application was taken up again, an adverse police report was received, and a show cause notice, dated 03.02.2026 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner again submitted a reply.

8. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order, dated 27.04.2026 is passed against the petitioner, stating that since her mother is an illegal immigrant, the petitioner cannot claim citizenship as per Section 3(1) C of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and, as such, the PCC application was refused as per Sections 5(2)(c) and 6(2)(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, and under Section 3(2)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Against the same, the writ petition is filed.

9. Mr.M.Fazil Perarrivalan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the issue of the petitioner’s citizenship cannot be reopened. The petitioner’s father is an Indian. Her mother came to India as a refugee, not as an illegal immigrant. He would further submit that Section 3 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, prohibits any person from entering India without a valid passport and visa. In exercise of the powers under Section 33 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, S.O.3997(E) dated 01.09.2025, the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, was issued. As per the same, Sri Lankan Tamil nationals who have taken shelter in India up to 09.01.2015 are exempt from Section 3(1)(2) and (3) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. Thus, the petitioner is an Indian citizen. Once the petitioner is an Indian citizen, the Police Clearance Certificate cannot be refused to her merely because an allegation in the form of a First Information Report is pending against her parents, especially when this Court has stayed the matter.

10. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel would rely on the judgments of this Court in Harina Vs. The Regional Passport Officer and Ors.(CDJ 2023 MHC 259); S.Ramya Vs. The Union of India and Ors.(2025:MHC:804); and G.Thirukalyanamalar Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. (W.P.No.18835 of 2013).

11. Per contra, Mr.Dhruva C.K.V, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, would submit that when the very citizenship of the petitioner is in doubt, the application has rightly been refused. The impugned order itself clearly states that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal before the fifth respondent. Further, by pointing to the counter affidavit, the learned Counsel would submit that when the petitioner has not filed any document to prove that the mother is not an illegal immigrant, the impugned order has rightly been passed.

12. I have considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the material records of the case.

13. Normally, this Court would have relegated the petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the fifth respondent. However, because the impugned order does not even refer to one earlier round of litigation between the parties, this Writ Petition is entertained, the pleadings are completed on merits, and hence the issue is considered on merits.

14. With reference to the doubt regarding the petitioner's citizenship, the petitioner has produced documents to prove that her father is an Indian. She was born in India. It is her case that the mother came to India as a refugee, straight to the camp at Rameshwaram, at the age of 6 years, and thereafter she was sent to the camp at Salem. Regulation 3(3) of the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025 reads as follows:

                     “3. ….

                     (2)The Provisions of Sub Sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the act to the extent of their stay in India and for the purposes of exiting India shall not apply to registered Sri Lanka Tamil Nationals who have taken shelter in India upto the 9th January, 2015.”

15. Thus, it can be seen that when, earlier, the petitioner’s Passport was sought to be impounded on the very same ground, the Petitioner submitted a detailed reply, and as per the orders of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.33512 of 2025, the issue was considered and the Passport was re-issued. Though the petitioner’s mother is a Sri Lankan refugee and the attempt to obtain an Indian Passport for her amounts to a crime and is under investigation, it must also be seen that the investigation is presently stayed by this Court. Be that as it may, the factual position is that when the Petitioner presented all the documents, after considering the same, the Passport was re-issued. After the same, when the Petitioner applied for PCC, once again the very same adverse police report regarding the pendency of the First Information Report was received, and without taking note of the earlier round of litigation and re-issuance of the Passport, the impugned order was passed and, as such, is without application of mind.

16. In view thereof, the impugned order cannot withstand scrutiny, and the respondents are liable to reconsider the issue of the Police Clearance Certificate afresh, taking into account the above.

17. In the result, W.P.No.21830 of 2026 is allowed on the following terms:

(a) The impugned order, dated 27.04.2026 passed by the first respondent in File No.CB2084995763026 stands quashed;

(b) The first respondent shall consider the issue afresh and pass orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than two months from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order;

(c) There shall be no order as to costs.