Disposed

Jegan Moothy v. the Government of India

Madras HC22 Nov 2024WP/32387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a petition for name correction and reissue of a passport. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's explanation and pass final orders on merits within two weeks, disposing of the writ petition without expressing a final opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Order to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's explanation and pass final orders on merits within two weeks.

Jegan Moothy Vs the Government of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.32387 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.32387 of 2024

Jegan Moorthy

..... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Rep. by the Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Chennai Royala Towers Nos.2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, B-7, Vellavedu Police Station, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur.

¶12

..... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 st respondent to Re-issue the Passport to the petitioner based on the petitioner Aadhar and Pan Card.

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.32387 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan for M/s.S.Priyadarshini For Respondents :Mr.B.Ram Prabu for R1 Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the first respondent to

¶20

issue passport to the petitioner based on the petitioner's Aadhar card and Pan card.

¶21

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has already been issued

¶22

with a passport. However, in the passport issued to the petitioner his name was mentioned as “Jagan Moorthy” instead of “Jegan Moorthy”. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application for correction of his name in the passport in application Ref.No.MA2076842298524. Pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner for correction of name and reissue of passport after correction, the first respondent issued a notice on 26.08.2024 calling for explanation from the petitioner regarding adverse police report

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.32387 of 2024

¶26

submitted by the second respondent citing pendency of two criminal cases in PRC.Nos.35 and 36 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.

¶27

3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice

¶28

issued by the first respondent on 24.09.2024 explaining the circumstances, under which the pendency of the two criminal cases was not mentioned in the application of the petitioner. Though the explanation of the petitioner was submitted as early as on 24.09.2024, till date, the first respondent has not passed orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for correction of name and issue of passport. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶29

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner already submitted his explanation on 24.09.2024 and hence the first respondent is not justified in keeping the application pending. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is ready to file undertaking affidavit, if any as demanded by the first respondent.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.32387 of 2024

¶33

The said statement is also recorded.

¶34

5. Mr.B.Ram Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the first

¶35

respondent would submit that the explanation offered by the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶36

6. Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶37

appearing for the second respondent filed a status report stating that there

¶38

are criminal cases pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee against the petitioner.

¶39

7. In view of the same, this Court without expressing any

¶40

opinion on the merits of the matter, is inclined to direct the first respondent

¶41

to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 and pass final orders on its own merits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.32387 of 2024

¶45

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶46

22.11.2024

¶47

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ub

¶48

To 1.The Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Rep. by the Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Chennai Royala Towers Nos.2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶49

2.The Inspector of Police, B-7, Vellavedu Police Station, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur.

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

W.P.No.32387 of 2024

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.32387 of 2024

¶56

22.11.2024

¶57

6/6

¶58

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

Jegan Moothy v. the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jegan Moothy v. the Government of India

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

K.R.Duraisamy Vs the Commissioner of Revenue Administration

A.E.Jeyabalan Vs the Commissioner

Arun Vs the Regional Passport Officer

V.Gopinath Vs the Member Secretary

Arulmighu Valaimburi Vinayaga Temple Thirupani Mandram Vs the District Collector

Nallammal Vs the Taluk Legal Service Committee