Allowed¶37

Mahalingam P v. The Regional Passport Officer

Writ of Mandamus – Passport

Madras HC15 Apr 2026WP(MD)/10451/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport refusal FIR registration Section 6 Passports Act 1967 mandamus Madurai Bench Madras High Court Hemant Chandangoudar Regional Passport Officer Tiruchirappalli Crime No.186/2022 Crime No.618/2022 Thiruppanandhal Papanasam Thanjavur issue passport four weeks eligibility criteria.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to process the petitioner's application (File No. TR1077445619325) and issue a fresh passport, subject to the petitioner satisfying all other eligibility criteria prescribed under law, within four (4) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as costs. ¶37

Mahalingam P Vs The Regional Passport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (Regional Passport Officer) was justified in withholding the petitioner's fresh passport application solely because an FIR / criminal cases (Cr.Nos.186 and 618 of 2022) were registered against him, where no criminal proceedings are pending before a criminal court.

¶30

Court's answer

Refusal to issue or renew a passport is governed by the Passports Act, 1967; under Section 6 the Passport Authority may refuse only on the circumstances specifically enumerated therein, one such ground being pendency of proceedings for an offence alleged against the applicant before a criminal court in India.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Mere registration of an FIR does not fall within the grounds contemplated under Section 6 of the Passports Act; the statutory bar arises only when criminal proceedings are pending before a competent criminal court.

¶30

Key takeaways

The action of the first respondent in withholding the petitioner's application solely on the basis of the registration of an FIR is not in consonance with the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Mandamus — Passport — Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli withheld petitioner's fresh passport application (File No. TR1077445619325) solely because FIRs / Crime Nos.186 and 618 of 2022 stood registered against him — refusal to issue or renew a passport governed by the Passports Act, 1967; under Section 6 refusal permissible only on specifically enumerated grounds, one being pendency of criminal proceedings before a criminal court in India — mere registration of an FIR is not such a ground — withholding of application not in consonance with the Act — writ petition allowed; first respondent directed to process the application and issue the passport within four weeks, subject to other eligibility criteria — no order as costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10451 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P.(MD)No.10451 of 2026

P.Mahalingam

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, New Municipal Complex, Thillai Nagar 7^th Cross, Tiruchirappalli - 620 018.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppanandhal Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.186/2022)

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Papanasam Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.618/2022)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to process the application of the petitioner and issue passport under File No. TR1077445619325 (Letter Ref. No.FCI/1052960375/25 dated 22.12.2025) within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.10451 of 2026

¶17

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Rahul For R1 :Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthan Central Government Standing Counsel For R2 and R3 :Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (crl.side) *****

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue a fresh passport based on his application in File No. TR1077445619325 (Letter Ref. No.FCI/1052960375/25 dated 22.12.2025)

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that, though an application has

¶21

been submitted for issuance of a fresh passport, the same has not been processed by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the application has been kept pending on the ground that criminal cases have been registered against him.

¶22

Mr. M. Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate

¶23

(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, on instructions, submitted that criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.10451 of 2026

¶27

in Cr.No.186 of 2022 and 618 of 2022.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

The refusal to issue or renew a passport is governed by the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. Under Section 6 of the Act, the Passport Authority is empowered to refuse issuance or renewal of a passport only in the circumstances specifically enumerated therein. One such ground is where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.

¶30

In the present case, the only reason cited by the respondents is the registration of an FIR against the petitioner. However, mere registration of an FIR does not fall within the grounds contemplated under Section 6 of the Act. The statutory bar arises only when criminal proceedings are pending before a competent criminal court.

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.10451 of 2026

¶34

Therefore, the action of the first respondent in withholding the

¶35

petitioner’s application solely on the basis of the registration of an FIR is not in consonance with the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.

¶36

In view of the above, this Court finds merit in the petitioner’s contention.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to process the petitioner’s application for issuance of a fresh passport bearing File No. TR1077445619325 (Letter Ref. No.FCI/1052960375/25 dated 22.12.2025) and issue the passport, subject to the petitioner satisfying all other eligibility criteria prescribed under law.

¶38