Allowed

Vetrikondan. D v. Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC7 Feb 2023WP(MD)/582/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an accused in a pending criminal FIR, sought issuance of passport facing delays due to show-cause notice. Court held FIR pendency alone cannot stop passport issuance but directed petitioner to file affidavit with contact details and give undertaking that prosecution不会被 stalled by his absence before passport authority processes the application. Writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; passport application to be processed after petitioner files affidavit and gives undertaking regarding prosecution continuity.

Vetrikondan. D Vs Regional Passport Officer — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.582 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.582 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No.579 of 2023

D.Vetrikondan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office Tiruchirapalli, Municipal Water Tank Building, W.B.Road, Tiruchirapalli.

¶11

2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi South Police Station, Sivagangai.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent vide his proceeding in Letter Ref. No.SCN/313927539/22 16.12.2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to issue passport to him within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

W.P(MD)No.582 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioner	: Mr.V.Sujatha
For R-1	: Mr.K.Gokul
	Central Government Standing Counsel
For R-2 & R-3	: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
	Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

¶21

The writ petitioner seeks issuance of passport. The petitioner is

¶22

figuring as an accused in Crime No.12 of 2017 registered on the file of the Karaikudi South Police Station. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P(MD)No. 22112 of 2022. It was dismissed on 18.10.2022. Because it was submitted by the passport authority that the petitioner's application was already closed. Hence, the petitioner has filed a fresh application. He has once again been issued with impugned show cause notice dated 16.12.2022. There is no need to interefere with the show cause notice. All the show cause notice states is that the petitioner should appear before the first respondent and offer his explanation. The petitioner can very well do so. In the meanwhile, it appears that the only impediment for processing the application is the pendency of the

¶23

criminal case. I wanted to know the status of the same.

¶24

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

¶25

2/5

¶26

W.P(MD)No.582 of 2023

¶27

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the second and third respondents submits that the case is still pending only at the FIR stage. It is well settled, the pendency of the criminal case in the FIR stage cannot be an impediment for issuing passport.

¶28

However, the petitioner has to appear before the third respondent and file an affidavit indicating his contact details. The petitioner has to furnish his mobile phone details as well as email details. This is because if any final report is filed adverse to the petitioner and the same is taken on file by the jurisdictional Magistrate, it could be possible to serve summons on the petitioner. The petitioner also must give an undertaking that the prosecution initiated against him will not be stalled, on account of his absence in India. If necessary, the petitioner will have to execute Special Vakalath in future so that he can be represented in the proceedings.

¶29

The petitioner shall file such an affidavit before the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After the petitioner satisfies the first respondent that he has complied with the undertaking mentioned above, the first respondent shall process the petition mentioned application and issue passport subject to fulfilment of the other

¶30

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

¶31

3/5

¶32

W.P(MD)No.582 of 2023

¶33

usual formalities. This writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as

¶34

to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶35

07.02.2023

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Btr

¶37

Note: Issue order copy on 06.03.2023. To

¶38

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office Tiruchirapalli, Municipal Water Tank Building, W.B.Road, Tiruchirapalli.

¶39

2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶40

3.The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi South Police Station, Sivagangai.

¶41

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

¶42

4/5

¶43

W.P(MD)No.582 of 2023

¶44

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶45

Btr

¶46

W.P(MD)No.582 of 2023

¶47

07.02.2023

¶48

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

¶49

5/5

Vetrikondan. D v. Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vetrikondan. D v. 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

Jayakannan Vs The Sub - Registrar

Mohamed Salihu Makkin Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Rajagopal .C Vs The District Collector

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Kailasa Nadar Vs The Dig of Registration

Kailasa Nadar Vs The District Collector