Madras High Court
V.Rajesh vs Union Of India on 28 October, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
WP No. 40398 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
WP No. 40398 of 2025
and WMP No. 45371 OF 2025
V.Rajesh
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union of India
Rep. By its Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
New Delhi.
2.The Regional Passport Officer
Regional Passport Office,
Raheja Towers Mount Road, Chennai.
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 records of the
2nd respondent in proceedings No. MA3066810412724 dated 18.09.2024 quash
the same and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to issue passport to the
petitioner as applied in Application No. ARN- 24- 10096810412724 dated
02.08.2024.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.L. Ramesh
For Respondent: Mr.G.Subramanian, CGC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )
WP No. 40398 of 2025
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings on the
file of the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. MA3066810412724, dated
18.09.2024 and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to issue passport to
the petitioner as applied in Application No. ARN- 24- 10096810412724 dated
2.08.2024.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made application for
issuance of passport. However, the same was rejected vide impugned order
dated 02.08.2024 on the ground that there is a criminal case is pending as
against the petitioner in Cr.No.2480 of 2017 on the file of the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in CC.No.8255/2019. Challenging
the said impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent, 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 respondent has not objected the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
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 was rejected on the sole ground that a
criminal case is pending as against the petitioner herein in CC.No.8255/2019 on
the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 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.)
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )
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. 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 order passed by the first respondent is set
aside;
(ii) The respondent is directed to process the application of the
petitioner 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.
(iii) If the petitioner wants to travel abroad, he has to get
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )
necessary permission from the Court where the criminal case is
pending against him.''
9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28-10-2025
Rli
Note: issue order copy on 05.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1. The Secretary, Ministry of External
Affairs,
Union Of India,New Delhi
2.The Regional Passport Officer
Regional Passport Office,
Raheja Towers, Mount Road, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI J.
rli
28-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 03:59:26 pm )
