M.Anantharasu vs The Regional Passport Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 8541 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8541 Mad
Judgement Date : 12 November, 2025

Madras High Court

M.Anantharasu vs The Regional Passport Officer on 12 November, 2025

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                                        WP No. 42793 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 12-11-2025

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                               WP No. 42793 of 2025
                                           and WMP NO. 47849 OF 2025

                M.Anantharasu

                                                                                        Petitioner(s)
                                                               Vs
                1. The Regional Passport Officer
                Regional Passport Office,
                Tiruchirapalli,
                New Municipal Complex,
                Thillainagar 7th Cross,
                Tiruchirapalli- 620 018.


                2. The Inspector Of Police,
                Keelapalur Police Station,
                Ariyalur District.

                                                                                        Respondent(s)

                PRAYER; This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

                India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record of the

                1st respondent pertaining to the impugned passport renewed / reissued in

                PASSPORT NO.AG526852 for one year (09-09-2025 to 08-09-09-2026) in

                passport Renewal /Reissue          Application Number -TR1077180177524 dated



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:10 pm )
                                                                                           WP No. 42793 of 2025



                04.12.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st

                respondent to reissue / renew the passport                       of the petitioner         in passport

                Application Number -TR1077180177524 dated 04.12.2024 for a period of 10

                years under Section 10 of passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of

                Passport Rules, 1980 without reference to the FIR / Criminal Proceedings

                pending against the petitioner.


                                  For Petitioner(s):       Mrs.Usharamman
                                  For Respondent:          Mr.S.Sivakumar, CGSC R1
                                                           Mr.S.Balaji, GA (Crl. Side) R2


                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned passport

issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the 1st respondent to

reissue / renew the passport of the petitioner in passport Application Number

-TR1077180177524 dated 04.12.2024 for a period of 10 years under Section

10 of passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980

without reference to the FIR / Criminal Proceedings pending against the

petitioner.

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

renewal/reissue of passport before the first respondent on 04.12.2024. Based on

the false complaint, the second respondent registered a case against the

petitioner in FIR No.522 dated 25.08.2021, for which, the first respondent has

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:10 pm )

rejected the petitioners application. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a writ

petition before this Court and the same was allowed. Pursuant to which, the first

respondent has issued passport to the petitioner on 25.05.2015 valid upto

24.05.2025. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

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

criminal case is pending.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that as per

notification of Ministry of External Affairs dated 25.08.1993, the authorities

have power to issue a passport for restricted period. Hence, the first respondent

has rightly acted upon the issue based on the criminal case pending against the

petitioner, which needs no interference.

5. The learned Government Advocate for the second respondent has not

raised any objection.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:10 pm )

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

renewal of passport before the first respondent and the same was kept pending

without any progress. In this background, the petitioner has filed a writ petition

before this Court and the same was allowed. Pursuant to the same, the first

respondent has issued passport to the petitioner for one year. The similar issue

has been already decided 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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:10 pm )

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 passport issued by the first respondent is set

aside;

(ii) The first respondent is directed to renew the passport and

issue to the petitioner as per the Passport Act, without insisting the

permission of the Court, where 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.