Madras High Court
Sujatha vs The Regional Passport Officer on 1 February, 2023
1 W.P.(MD)NO.25187 OF 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.25187 of 2022 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19285 & 19288 of 2022
Sujatha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office,
New Municipal Complex,
Thillai Nagar, 7th Cross,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 018.
2. Ravi ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for
the records pertaining to the impugned communication dated
19.09.2022 issued by the 1st respondent to the son of the
petitioner through Email vide proceedings Letter Reference
No.IMP/313350283/2022 on the file of the 1st respondent and
to quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar
For R-1 : Mr.V.Malaiyendran,
Central Government
Standing Counsel.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
2 W.P.(MD)NO.25187 OF 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the
first respondent.
2. Though Ravi has been shown as the second
respondent, notice was not ordered to him.
3. The petitioner is the mother of one Sureya. By the
impugned order, Sureya's passport has been impounded.
Challenging the impounding order, the present writ petition
came to be filed.
4. The basic facts are not in dispute. The petition
mentioned passport in the name of Sureya was obtained on
the strength of a fake birth certificate. In fact, this position is
conceded by the petitioner herself. The petitioner is the wife
of one Subramanian. But the said Subramanian was already
wedded to one Jeyalakshmi. Subramaniam passed away in the
year 2016. There arose dispute among the two wives. A civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 W.P.(MD)NO.25187 OF 2022
suit came to be filed. In the said civil suit, the petitioner
herein filed various documents including the birth certificate
of her son Sureya. The second respondent herein is the son-in-
law of Jeyalakshmi. The wife of the second respondent was one
of the defendants in the said civil suit. A complaint was lodged
that the birth certificate filed by the petitioner was bogus. An
enquiry was conducted and that the allegation turned out to
be true. Thereupon the learned trial Judge directed initiation
of the prosecution under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. C.C.No.955 of
2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Tiruchirappalli was taken up. The petitioner figured as an
accused. The case ended in acquittal vide judgment dated
14.09.2022. A copy of the acquittal judgment is enclosed in
the typed set of papers. The learned trial Magistrate had
rendered a finding that while the birth certificate of Suriya is
bogus, there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner
herein was responsible for its procurement. In fact the
petitioner would assert that she was unaware of the true
character of the said birth certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 W.P.(MD)NO.25187 OF 2022
5. It is also not in dispute that the passport in favour of
Sureya was issued originally in the year 2005. The competent
criminal Court has held that the petitioner was not responsible
for the procurement of the fake birth certificate. Sureya was
admittedly a minor when the passport was originally issued.
Neither the petitioner nor Sureya can be fastened with any
criminal liability or responsibility.
6. When the passport in question was obtained on the
strength of a fake document, it has to be necessarily recalled.
Sureya is now major and he has to necessarily submit a fresh
application for issuance of fresh passport.
7. Now the only question is whether this Court should
interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. The
learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that
Sureya has since completed his studies at Dubai and if the
impugned order is not kept in abeyance, his entry into India
may be jeopardized.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 W.P.(MD)NO.25187 OF 2022
8. I record the undertaking given by the learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner on instructions that Sureya
will appear before the first respondent within thirty days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sureya, son of the
petitioner shall appear before the first respondent on
03.03.2023 at 3.00 p.m.
9. Till then, (ie.) 03.03.2023, the impugned order shall be
kept in abeyance and shall not operate. If Sureya failed to
appear before the first respondent on the date and time
mentioned above, this order now passed will spring back to
life. The original passport will have to be surrendered before
the first respondent on 03.03.2023.
10. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
01.02.2023
NCS : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PMU
To:
The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office, New Municipal Complex,
Thillai Nagar, 7th Cross, Tiruchirappalli – 620 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 W.P.(MD)NO.25187 OF 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
W.P.(MD)No.25187 of 2022
01.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
