Madras High Court
Aynul Yakheen Ibrahim vs The Regional Passport Officer on 25 March, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.303 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 06.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.303 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3863 of 2025
Aynul Yakheen Ibrahim ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Regional Passport Officer,
Madurai Regional Passport Office,
Bharathi Ula Veethi,
Race Course Road,
Madurai-625 002.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Alagarkoil Main Road,
Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
C1, Thideernagar Police Station,
Madurai, Madurai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.31482 of 2024, dated 09.01.2025.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:01:58 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.303 of 2025
For Appellants :Mrs.N.Krishnaveni
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Robinson
For R1 :Mr.K.Govindarajan
Deputy Solicitor General
For R2 and R3 :Mr.A.Albert James
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
For proposed R4 :Mr.Mahaboob Athif
***
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
The present writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner against the order
dated 09.01.2025 passed in W.P.(MD)No.31482 of 2024.
2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to
direct the 1st respondent to renew and reissue the passport to the petitioner in
his application vide File No.MD1077171654524, dated 02.12.2024, pending on
the file of the 1st respondent within a time stipulated.
3. The writ petitioner is already having Passport No. Z4045513 and
the same is likely to expire on 04.10.2026. In the meanwhile, the papers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:01:58 pm )
enclosed in the passport were exhausted on stamping of visa due to the writ
petitioner's frequent travel. On 02.12.2024, the writ petitioner submitted an
application seeking re-issuance of passport along with necessary documents.
The passport authority had directed the writ petitioner to appear before the
authority seeking explanation regarding the criminal case registered against the
writ petitioner in Crime No.82 of 2022 and charge sheeted in S.C.No.90 of
2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. Hence,
the writ petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking the relief to renew and re-
issue the passport.
4. After considering the rival submissions, the Writ Court has held
that the writ petitioner is at liberty to move the Additional Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Madurai, for the said relief. While the Writ Court passing the order had
observed that the writ petitioner has fundamental right to travel and to carry on
his avocation, at the same time had observed that the validity of the passport
will have to be restricted. Aggrieved over the direction to move the Judicial
Magistrate and also aggrieved over the observation of restriction, the writ
petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:01:58 pm )
5. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the validity of passport
cannot be restricted on the ground of pending criminal proceedings and the
same is violating the fundamental right. Further, the appellant is not convicted
and the criminal proceedings are still pending. On the other hand, the 1 st
respondent Passport Officer had submitted that the writ petitioner ought to have
obtained an order from the “concerned Court” and then only new passport can
be issued. The police officials submitted that if the passport is granted for 10
years as claimed by the writ petitioner, the Criminal Trial would be hampered.
Further, writ petitioner has filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1257 of 2025, to quash the
S.C.No.90 of 2023 and this Court has already granted interim stay of the said
proceedings, hence the said criminal case cannot be concluded because of the
interim stay granted in quash petition. Therefore, if the passport is granted for
longer period, the writ petitioner cannot be secured in the criminal case. Hence,
there was serious objections by the respondents.
6. After considering the rival submissions, this Court had given its
anxious consideration. It is seen that the criminal case was filed against the
appellant / writ petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 307
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:01:58 pm )
and 506(ii) of I.P.C. The appellant was accused for rioting in a dispute among
the members of Jamath.
7. Since the criminal case is pending, the passport authorities would
insist to produce order from the concerned Court, by relying on the Notification
No. GSR 570(E), dated 25.08.1993 issued by Ministry of External Affairs,
wherein it states that the citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect
of offense alleged to have been committed are pending before Criminal Court
in India and who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to
deport from India. The “concerned Criminal Court” alone is empowered to
grant orders for a specified period for granting passport. If no period is
mentioned, it can be issued for one year. The relevant portion of the said
notification is extracted hereunder:
“(a) the passport to be issued to every such Citizen, shall be issued,
(i) for the period specified in the Order of the Court referred to above,
if the Court specifies a period for which the Passport has to be issued,
or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of passport of for the travel abroad
is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of
One Year.
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:01:58 pm )
than One Year, but does not specify the period of validity of the
passport, the passport shall be issued for One Year.
(iv) If such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period
exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport,
then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad
specified in the order.”
8. The contention of the passport authorities is that the writ petitioner
can very well approach the Additional Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, by
filing a petition in S.C.No.90 of 2023 and obtain an order. But it is seen that the
writ petitioner had preferred a quash petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1257 of 2025,
to quash the S.C.No.90 of 2023 and obtained an interim stay. Therefore, now,
the Judicial Magistrate cannot entertain any petition while stay is in force.
When stay is in force then the “concerned Court” would be High Court as held
in W.P.(MD)No.7056 of 2017 reported in 2017 3 CTC 493 wherein it is held as
under:
“From the reading of the aforesaid Notification, in the opinion of this
Court, the expression “concerned Court” will mean the Court before
whom the person is facing the prosecution. In this case, had there not
been a quash petition pending, the “concerned Court” would be the
learned Judicial Magistrate V, Trichy before whom the petitioner is
facing Trial in C.C.No.21 of 2015. However, this Court, in exercise of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:01:58 pm )
its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has admitted Cr.O.P.(MD)No.
3533 of 2017 has granted stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.21
of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate V, Trichy. Under such
circumstances, the expression “concerned Court” in the context of the
present case will mean the High Court and not the Judicial
Magistrate.”
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that when there is any stay in
quash petition, then the High Court is the “concerned Court”. Hence the order
passed by Writ Court directing the writ petitioner to approach Magistrate Court
is incorrect.
9.The next question is whether the writ petitioner is entitled to
passport for restricted period. If the writ petitioner is granted 10 years passport,
it would be difficult to secure him before the Criminal Court. If it is issued for
one year, the appellant / writ petitioner would face difficulty in getting visa
from other countries. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the appellant / writ petitioner may be granted
passport for 5 (five) years. The writ petitioner shall give an undertaking as
contemplated by clause (d) of the Notification dated 25.08.1993. And the writ
petitioner shall appear before the Criminal Court as and when necessary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:01:58 pm )
10. With the above said observations and directions, the writ appeal is
allowed of and C.M.P.(MD)No.3863 of 2025 is closed. No costs.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
25.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Tmg
To:
1.The Regional Passport Officer,
Madurai Regional Passport Office,
Bharathi Ula Veethi,
Race Course Road,
Madurai-625 002.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Alagarcoil Main Road,
Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
C1, Thideernagar Police Station,
Madurai, Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:01:58 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
25.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:01:58 pm )
