Petitioner filed a writ seeking issuance of passport despite being arrayed as an accused. The court held that mere arraying does not disentitle a citizen from passport issuance. The authority was directed to complete the exercise within three weeks.
Petitioner directed to issue passport within three weeks.
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.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD)No.4796 of 2023 Santhosh ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Trichy.
2.The Superintendent Enquiry Officer, The Regional Passport Office, 2nd Floor, Corporation Complex Building, 7th Cross Street, West Thillai Nagar, Trichy, Tamil Nadu.
3.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first and second respondent to issue passport on the petitioner's application No.TR1064725969722, dated 01.11.2022 based on his reply, dated 22.02.2023.
For Petitioner :Mr.T.Easwar For R1 and R2 :Mr.K.R.Laxman Central Government Senior Panel Counsel For R3 :Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan Spcial Government Pleader
1/4
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the first and second respondents to issue passport consequent to application No.TR1064725969722, dated 01.11.2022.
2.Heard Mr.T.Easwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel for the first and second respondent and Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan, learned Special Government Pleader for the third respondent.
3.The petitioner had applied for passport under the aforementioned
application. It was then stated an FIR in Cr.No.235 of 2017 had been registered against the petitioner by the third respondent under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC. He was called upon to give an explanation by the second respondent and he had also given an explanation.
4.The petitioner herein had been arrayed as A3. It is trite in law that mere arraying of a person as an accused would not disentitle him for
2/4
issuance of passport or for receiving passport. He is entitled for passport
as a citizen of this Country.
5.The second respondent is directed, since they had already received clarification, to proceed further with the aforementioned application and if required, issue notice to the petitioner and get an undertaking, if they require the same, and if the petitioner is eligible, proceed to issue passport. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Index :Yes / No 21.04.2023 Internet :Yes NCC : Yes/No cmr
To
The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.
3/4
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
cmr
Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4796 of 2023
21.04.2023
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner arrayed as an accused in an FIR is disentitled from receiving a passport.
Whether the passport issuing authority is directed to proceed further with the application after receiving an explanation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santhosh
The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Trichy
The Superintendent Enquiry Officer, The Regional Passport Office, Trichy
The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
