Allowed

Kresh Thyagaraj, v. The Passport Officer

Madras HC8 Sept 2016WP/27055/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to genuinely consider the petitioner's representation and take immediate steps to impound the 3rd respondent's passports within two months after affording the 3rd respondent adequate opportunity. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Authority directed to pass appropriate orders granting implication of passports after giving respondent three months opportunity within two months.

Kresh Thyagaraj, Vs The Passport Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.09.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P. No.27055 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.23236 of 2016

Kiresh Thyagaraj

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1 The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Mount Road, Chennai-2.

¶10

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Coimbatore.

¶11

S.SanthanaKrishnan .. Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.07.2016 and take immediate steps to impound the passports of 3rd respondent bearing Nos. GO829572 & M6505590.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivakumar For R1 & R2 : Mr. S.Ratnasabapathy For R3 : No appearance O R D E R

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.07.2016 and take immediate steps to impound the passports of 3rd respondent bearing Nos. GO829572 & M6505590.

¶15

Though private notice has been served on the 3rd respondent as early as on 03.08.2016 and affidavit of service has also been filed, there was no representation on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

¶16

Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that already they have issued show cause notice to third respondent and they will proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the enquiry be conducted within a prescribed time limit.

¶18

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities concerned are directed to pass appropriate orders after giving sufficient opportunity to the third respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (J)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Passport Officer,Regional Passport Office,
Mount Road, Chennai-2.
2. The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office, Coimbatore.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Rathanasabathy,advocate,sr.51033
+1 cc to M/s.R.Sivakumar,advocate,sr.51065.
ad(co)
krd 23/9
W.P. No.27055 of 2016

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kresh Thyagaraj, v. The Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kresh Thyagaraj, v. The Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Jayaraman Vs the Inspector of Police

Palayyan Vs the Secretary to Government

M.G.Gopal, Vs The Revenue Secretary

R.Saravanakumar Vs The Assistant General Manager

S.Malar, Vs The Commissioner

D.S.Ramesh Vs The Chief General Manager