Disposed

T.Jeyachandran v. the Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC27 Jun 2017WP(MD)/11342/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought mandamus for issuing a passport, though his criminal appeal was pending. The court did not direct issuance but ordered the Respondent to reconsider the petitioner's representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Respondent ordered to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2017 and pass decision on merits within four weeks.

T.Jeyachandran Vs the Regional Passport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.06.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.11342 of 2017

¶5

T.Jeyachandran ...Petitioner

¶6

-Vs-

¶7

The Regional Passport Officer, The Regional Passport Office, Claret Plaza, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai 625016. ...Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue passport to the petitioner based on his application bearing file No.MD1060115320917 dated 29.03.2017 within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.R.Murugappan Standing Counsel

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue the passport to the petitioner based on his application bearing file No.MD1060115320917 dated 29.03.2017 within a stipulated time.

¶13

2.Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Murugappan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner was working in the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, a criminal case was registered against him by CBI(ACB), Chennai and the petitioner was acquitted after trial by the learned Additional District Sessions Court for CBI cases, Madurai in C.C.No.6 of 2004 on 29.03.2012.

¶15

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

¶16

It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the C.B.I is still pending in Crl.Appeal No.180 of 2014. The petitioner

¶17

¶18

attained the age of superannuation and relieved from service on 28.02.2017. The respondent citing the pendency of the appeal, is refusing to issue passport in favour of the petitioner and hence he made a representation to the respondent dated 07.06.2017. The learned Counsel further submitted that, it would suffice, if direction is given to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders accordingly.

¶19

5.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has submitted an application for issuance of passport, suppressing the pendency of the criminal appeal and the representation of the petitioner is under consideration.

¶20

6.Though a larger relief is prayed for in the Writ petition, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.06.2017 and take decision on merits and in accordance with law, after providing necessary opportunity to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

7.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Regional Passport Officer, The Regional Passport Office, Claret Plaza, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai 625 016.

¶27

+1 cc to Mr.S.C.Herold Singh , Advocate in SR.No. 62087 +1 cc to Mr.R.Murugappan , Advocate in SR.No. 62490

¶28

msa/dss

¶29

AE/MR KKR/SAR3/06.07.2017/2P/4C

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.11342 of 2017

¶31

27.06.2017

¶32

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

T.Jeyachandran v. the Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Jeyachandran v. the Regional 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

Kamaraja Pandian Vs the Inspector General of

Farishta Vs the Director of School

Udayasuriyan, Vs the Tahsildar

S.Sarojini, W/O.Santhanam, Vs the State Represented by

M.Amsavalli Vs the Director of Town and

S.Chitra, W/O.Sivakumar Vs the Union of India