Elangovan Ramakrishnan vs The Regional Passport Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 8319 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8319 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 November, 2025

Madras High Court

Elangovan Ramakrishnan vs The Regional Passport Officer on 4 November, 2025

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                                            WP No. 41919 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 04-11-2025

                                                              CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                    WP No. 41919 of 2025
                Elangovan Ramakrishnan

                                                                                            Petitioner(s)
                                                                   Vs
                1. The Regional Passport Officer.
                Regional Passport Office,
                Corporation Commercial Complex,
                First Floor,
                Opp. Thandumariamman Koil,
                Avinashi Road, Coimbatore-641 018

                2.The Inspector of Police
                Erode Town Police Station, Erode,
                (Cr.No.10 of 2023)

                                                                       Respondent(s)
                PRAYER; This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
                India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
                to the impugned order in File No. CB1065196178625, Letter Ref.No.
                FCI/1051309532/25 dated 24.10.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent quash
                the same and direct the 1st respondent to issue passport to the petitioner at an
                earliest.

                                   For Petitioner(s):       Mr.V.Elangovan
                                   For Respondent:          Mr.S.Balaji, GA (Crl. Side) R2
                                                            Mr.L.J.Vengatesh, CGSC R1




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )
                                                                                         WP No. 41919 of 2025



                                                           ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order in File

No.CB1065196178625 Letter Ref.No.FCI/1051309532/25 dated 24.10.2025 on

the file of the 1st respondent and direct the 1st respondent to issue passport to

the petitioner at an earliest.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made application for

issuance of passport on 17.06.2025. On 30.09.2025 the first respondent issue a

show cause notice stating that the first respondent had received an adverse

police verification report stating that the applicant is involved in a case in

Cr.No.10 of 2023 on the file of the second respondent'' . The respondent police

has filed charge sheet in STC. No.1279 of 2025 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode. Therefore, the petitioner's application is kept

pending without any progress and no final report has been passed so far. Hence,

the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said impugned

show cause notice dated 24.10.2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved

in the present Writ petition is no longer res integra and the similar issue has

already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in WA.

No.902/2023 dated 02.06.2023 wherein this Court held that mere pendency of

the criminal case is not a bar for renewal of the passport. If the person wants to

travel abroad, he has to get necessary permission from the Court, where the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )

criminal case is pending.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent has not objected the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate for the second respondent

submitted that there is no heinous office as against the petitioner.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has made application for

issuance of passport and the same is kept pending without any progress. In this

background, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision

rendered by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in WA.902 of 2023 dated

02.06.2023.

8. This Court perused the judgment passed by this Court and the relevant

paragraphs are extracted herein;

''5. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992, to which one of us (S.V.Gangapurwala, CJ.) was a party, has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, supra and directed the respondent therein to process the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )

6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent cannot travel abroad without the permission of the Court where the criminal case is pending, would not be an impediment for the passport authority to consider the application for renewal of the passport. No doubt, if the first respondent has to travel abroad and the criminal case is pending, then unless the Magistrate or the Sessions Court where the criminal case is pending permits the first respondent to travel abroad, he cannot travel abroad.

7. In the light of the above, we pass the following order:

(i) The writ appellant shall process the application of the first respondent for renewal of passport without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the first respondent. If the first respondent is travelling abroad, then the first respondent would be required to seek permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending.

(ii) Decision shall be taken as above, within one month.''

9. Since the present issue is also one and the similar, therefore, following

the said Judgment of this Court, the following orders are passed:

''(i) The impugned show cause notice issued by the first

respondent is set aside;

(ii) The first respondent is directed to process the application

of the petitioner without insisting the permission of the Court, where

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )

the criminal case is pending against the petitioner and decision shall

be taken as above, within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.