Disposed

Vishnu Kumar v. The Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC8 Dec 2025WP(MD)/35011/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus for re-issue of the petitioner's passport pending a criminal case and an unrectified charge sheet from 2022. The court held that mere pendency of an FIR is not a ground for rejecting a passport application and directed the Passport Officer to decide within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to consider the passport application and pass orders within four weeks.

Vishnu Kumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.35011 of 2025

Vishnu Kumar

...Petitioner

The Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirapalli, New Municipal Complex, Thillainagar 7^th Cross, Tiruchirappalli - 620 018, Tamil Nadu.

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, K. Pudupatty Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Cr.No.15/2018)

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

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 (Passport Application Number TR2075922243323) to the petitioner pursuant to his application dated 28.10.2023 within a reasonable period to be determined by this Court.

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s.S.A.Ajin Singh For Respondents : M/s.B.Narayan Ram for R1 Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate(crl.side) for R2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus as against the first respondent for issuance of the passport based upon his application dated 28.10.2023.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the second respondent brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been implicated in a criminal case in Cr.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the second respondent for the alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 341, 294b, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. A charge sheet has been laid on 13.02.2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumaiyam and so far, it has not been taken on file due to certain defects.

¶18

In view of the fact that the police officials have not taken any steps to rectify the defects in the charge sheet for the past 2 years, the first respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of the passport.

¶19

2/5

¶20

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

¶21

This Court in a judgment reported in 2014 (8) MLJ 61 has held that mere pendency of FIR is not a ground for rejecting the request for issuance of passport.

¶22

In view of the above said facts, the first respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of the passport and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23