Madras High Court
Jegan Moorthy vs The Government Of India on 25 November, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
WP No. 45561 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
WP No. 45561 of 2025
Jegan Moorthy
S/o.Munusamy, No.905, Gangaiyamman
Koil Street, Andarsonpet, Nemam,
Tiruvallur,
Tamil Nadu - 600 124.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government of India
Ministry of External Affairs,
Rep by The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office, Royal Tower
Nos.2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No. 785
New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600 002.
2.The Regional Passport Officer
Regional Passport Office, No.1
Bhanumathi Ramakrishna Road,
Saligramam, Chennai 600 093.
3.The Inspector Of Police
B-7 Vellavedu Police Station,
Ponnamallee, Tiruvallur – 600 124.
4.The Inspector Of Police
D-2 Thiruvalangadu Police Station,
Tiruvallur – 631 210.
Respondent(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
WP No. 45561 of 2025
PRAYER
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to re-issue a Regular Passport
with full validity of ten (10) years in favour of the petitioner in accordance with
the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated
25.08.1993.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan
For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Baskar,
for R1 & R2
Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Government Pleader
Asst. by Mr.S.Balaji,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R3 & R4
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to re-
issue a Regular Passport with full validity of ten (10) years in favour of the
petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and
Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a sitting Member of
the Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing K.V.Kuppam Constituency, Vellore
District and is also the President of the political party “Puratchi Bharatham”. The
petitioner obtained a valid passport in the year 2006 and the same was valid up to
2016. Thereafter, the same was renewed. However, renewal of the passport is
going to expire in December 2025. Thereby, the petitioner made an application
for renewal of passport vide application dated 04.11.2025 to the respondents 1
and 2. However, the same has not been considered by the respondents 1 and 2 till
date. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
3. The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that
against the petitioner there are five criminal cases pending before the 3 rd and 4th
respondent police and hence, vehemently, opposed for renewal of the passport of
the petitioner.
4.In reply, 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.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6.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.
7. 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.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
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
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.''
8. In the present case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that only FIR
has been registered against the petitioner and it has not resulted in the Court
taking cognizance of the offense. In such view of the matter, complying the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2023, this
Court passes the following order:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
''(i) The second respondent is directed to process the
application of the petitioner without insisting the permission of the
Court, as there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner
before any Court and a decision shall be taken as above, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) If the petitioner wants to travel abroad, the petitioner
would be required to seek permission from the Court where the case
is pending or from this Court, if no case as yet has been filed, by
filing appropriate application.”
9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.
No costs.
25-11-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1. The Government of India
Ministry of External Affairs,
Rep by The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office, Royal Tower
New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600 002.
2.The Regional Passport Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
Regional Passport Office, No.1
Bhanumathi Ramakrishna Road,
Saligramam, Chennai 600 093.
3.The Inspector Of Police
B-7 Vellavedu Police Station,
Ponnamallee, Tiruvallur – 600 124.
4.The Inspector Of Police
D-2 Thiruvalangadu Police Station,
Tiruvallur – 631 210.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI J.
Tsg
25-11-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )
