The petitioner, a VP leader, challenged the rejection of his passport application due to pending criminal cases. The Court held he is entitled to reapply once cases are disposed of and dismissed the writ petition without making a mandatory direction.
The writ petition was dismissed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.33448 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.No.33448 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.36938 & 36939 of 2017
K.Mani
...Petitioner
-Vs-
Regional Passport Office, First floor, Corporation Commercial Complex, Opp. Thandumariamman Koil, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. ...Respondent
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in letter Ref.No.SCN/301054889/14, dated 03.02.2014, on the file of the respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondent to issue passport to the petitioner as per application dated 05.11.2012 to enable him to undertake travel abroad.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondent : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy Central Government Standing Counsel
1/6
W.P.No.33448 of 2017
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to quash the impugned communication in letter Ref.No.SCN/301054889/14 dated 03.02.2014 on the file of the respondent and further to direct the respondent to issue passport to the petitioner as per application dated 05.11.2012 to enable him to undertake
travel abroad.
2/6
W.P.No.33448 of 2017
Therefore the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground of pendency of criminal complaint cannot be faulted.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that all the criminal cases were by making trivial charges particularly in relation to his political association with a religious organisation. However, the impugned order cannot be questioned on the ground that the criminal cases were disposed of in favour of the petitioner subsequently. Therefore, this Court is unable to find any error or reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondent.
4.Having regard to the facts narrated by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to make fresh application before the respondent for issuance of passport to the petitioner. The respondent may pass appropriate orders after considering the order that was passed by the Criminal Court discharging the petitioner from the charges and other records that may be produced by the petitioner to meet the queries raised by the respondent.
5.With the above observation and liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for issuing passport, the above writ petition stands dismissed. The
W.P.No.33448 of 2017
dismissal of this writ petition shall not stand in the way of the respondent considering the fresh application that may be submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law purely on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.11.2022
cda
4/6
W.P.No.33448 of 2017
To
Regional Passport Office, First floor, Corporation Commercial Complex, Opp. Thandumariamman Koil, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore.
5/6
W.P.No.33448 of 2017
S.S.SUNDAR. J.,
cda
W.P.No.33448 of 2017
09.11.2022
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the passport authority to issue a passport to a petitioner whose application was rejected due to pending criminal cases, even though the petitioner seeks to reapply a
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Mani
Regional Passport Office
S.S.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
