Disposed

M.Ganesh, v. the Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC22 Oct 2018WP(MD)/17241/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that mere pendency of FIRs without a charge sheet cannot deny a passport. The petitioner was directed to provide proof of residence via Aadhar Card; upon verification, the passport must be issued.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and issue the passport if residence is proven, within two weeks.

M.Ganesh, Vs the Regional Passport Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.10.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.17241 of 2018

M.Ganesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Municipal Water Tank Building, W.B. Road, Trichy – 08.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Sethupavasathiram Police Station, Thanjavur District. ...Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue passport to the petition pursuant to the petitioner's application dated 23.03.2018 bearing application reference No.TR1061049097118 by considering his representation dated 31.07.2018 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Sabeer Mohamed For Respondents : Mr.V.Kathirvel

¶14

Assist. Solicitor General of India assisted by

¶15

Mr.K.Prabhu

¶16

Central Govt. Standing Counsel (for R1)

¶17

Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu Addl. Govt. Pleader (for R2)

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that he has applied for Passport on 23.03.2018 and paid necessary fees to the first respondent. In pursuance of his application, the petitioner had also appeared before the first respondent and produced all the documents. His application number is TR1061049097118. Thereafter, it appears that the first respondent had requested the second respondent to verify any criminal proceedings pending https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ against the petitioner. The second respondent appears to have conducted an enquiry and sent a communication to the first respondent. On the basis of the report by the second respondent,

¶20

¶21

the Passport Issuing Authority has refused to issue Passport on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner was not living in the address mentioned by him in the application and also two criminal cases are pending against him.

¶22

2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the counsels appearing for the respondents that no charge sheet has been filed in both the criminal cases and the same are only in the FIR stage and the Magistrate concerned has not taken the case on file.

¶23

3.In such circumstances, this Court is of the consistent view that mere pendency of the FIR cannot be the basis for denying the Passport. However, it appears that the first respondent has given one more reason in addition to the pendency of criminal case namely that the petitioner was not living in the address mentioned by him in the application.

¶24

4.However, at this, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Adhar Card issued to the petitioner clearly mentioned the address where the petitioner is residing and that is enough proof for him to establish his claim of his place of residence.

¶25

5.In view of the above dispute, this Court would not be in a position to issue any positive direction. However, it appears that the petitioner has sufficient proof to establish his place of residence through the Adhar Card issued to him. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner and in case his proof of residence is established on the basis of the documents to be submitted by him, the Passport shall be issued to him without relying on the criminal cases pending against him, which even according to the learned counsel for the respondents, no charge sheet has been filed. The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

¶31

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Municipal Water Tank Building, W.B. Road, Trichy – 08.

¶32

2.The Inspector of Police, Sethupavasathiram Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶33

+1 CC To MR.K.PRABHU, Advocate SR. NO. 91164

¶34

+1 CC To MR.I.SABER MOHAMED, Advocate SR. NO. 91262

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.17241 of 2018

¶36

22.10.2018

¶37

SKN TR/SKN/SAR-I(22.11.2018)3P 5C

¶38

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

M.Ganesh, v. the Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ganesh, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Balkes Beevi, Vs the Executive Officer

S.R.Chandrasekar, Vs the Managing Director

S.Muthukrishnan Vs the Secretary Government of

M.Irulappan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Arumugam Asari, Vs the Joint Commissioner

R.Manikandan Vs the District Collector