Dhanasekaran Vs Union of India

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to File No.TR1076474149924; quash the Letter Reference No.FCL/320157651/2024 issued dated 03.12.2024 by the

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

Writ Petition No.21080 of 2025

¶21

second respondent, being illegal and violative of Article 21 of the constitution of India and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reissue /renew the passport in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mohan Lal For Respondents : Mr.S.Dilliraj Central Government Standing Counsel [R1 & R2] Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate [Crl.side] [R3] *****

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter dated 03.12.2024 issued by the second respondent and for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to re-issue/renew the passport of the petitioner.

¶25

Heard Mr.P.Mohan Lal, learned counsel for petitioner,

¶26

Mr.S.Dilliraj, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] for third respondent.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

Writ Petition No.21080 of 2025

¶30

The application submitted by the petitioner seeking for

¶31

renewal of passport was not entertained on the ground that there is a pending criminal case against the petitioner in Crime No.349 of 2024 on the file of third respondent.

¶32

Learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] appearing on

¶33

behalf of the third respondent submitted that the First Information Report was registered for offence under the Mines and Minerals Act. That apart, investigation has been completed and the police report has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate I, Ariyalur and the same is yet to be taken on file.

¶34

It is now too well settled that the case remaining at the stage

¶35

of First Information Report cannot be considered as a "Case Pending". As on today, the case is at the stage of First Information Report and therefore, there can be no objection for the second respondent to deal with the application submitted by the petitioner seeking for reissue/renewal of passport. The same shall be done within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the petitioner satisfies all the other requirements.

¶36

3/4

¶37

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

¶38

Writ Petition No.21080 of 2025

¶39

gm

¶40

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

¶41

This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No

¶42

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

13.06.2025

¶44

Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index: Yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm To

¶45

Union of India The Commissioner of Immigration Bureau of Immigration, Haddows Road, Thousand Light West, Thousand Light, Chennai-600 008.

¶46

2.Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, New Municipal Complex, Thillainagar, 7th Cross, Tiruchirappalli-620 018. 3.The Inspector of Police, Kairlabath Police Station, Ariyalur District.

¶47

Writ Petition No.21080 of 2025

¶48

4/4

¶49

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

Dhanasekaran v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanasekaran v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Thulasi Vs the Managing Director

K.Murugan Vs the District Collector

J.Siva Vs the Deputy Secretary to Government

V. Akila Vs District Social Welfare

G.Ramamurthy Vs Regional Passport Officer

S.Saravanan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu