Disposed

Kaliraj v. The Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC24 Apr 2023WP(MD)/5623/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the passport authority to issue a passport. The court noted a pending criminal FIR against the petitioner. It directed the authority to issue the passport within six weeks if the petitioner is eligible, contingent on obtaining a necessary undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to issue the passport if the petitioner is eligible, subject to obtaining a necessary undertaking, within six weeks.

Kaliraj Vs The Regional Passport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 24.04.2023

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.5623 of 2023

Kaliraj

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Court Road, Madurai – 625 002.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to issue passport in favour of the petitioner which is pending in File No.MD2064830271322, dated 02.12.2022 on the file of the first respondent within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi For R1 :Ms.Deepa For R2 :Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader

¶13

¶14

1/4

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the first respondent to issue passport to the petitioner consequent to application in File No.MD2064830271322, dated 02.12.2022.

¶18

2.Heard Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Deepa, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the second respondent

¶19

3.The petitioner had filed the aforementioned application seeking passport. The first respondent had stated that they received an adverse report from the second respondent. It had been informed that an FIR in Cr.No.231 of 2020 had been registered against the petitioner and four others by the second respondent on 12.05.2022 for offence under Section

¶20

207 IPC and under Section 12 of Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930.

¶21

4.The learned Special Government Pleader, who appears on behalf

¶22

2/4

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

of the second respondent stated that after investigation, final report had been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Alangulam, but it had not yet been taken cognizance.

¶25

5.In view of this fact, a direction is issued to the first respondent that if the petitioner is otherwise eligible to proceed to issue passport. Necessary undertaking may be obtained from the petitioner. The entire exercise must be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

6.The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶27

Index :Yes / No 24.04.2023 Internet :Yes NCC : Yes/No

¶28

cmr

¶29

¶30

The Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station, Tenkasi District.

¶31

3/4

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶34

cmr

¶35

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.5623 of 2023

¶36

24.04.2023

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

4/4

Kaliraj v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaliraj 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

Pandiyan.M Vs the Tahsildar

V.Shanmugavelu, Vs Babu

Santhosh Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Jasline M Vs The Registrar

Arumugam, Vs The Commissioner

Kamuthi Vattara Santhai Vyabarigal Sangam Vs The District Collector