Disposed¶24

Manjula v. The Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC2 Jun 2026WP(MD)/14441/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport re-issuance; Regional Passport Officer Tiruchirapalli; notice demanding documents on Indian citizenship by descent, registration or naturalization; mandamus under Article 226; direction to consider reply/explanation dated 01.09.2025 and pass orders in accordance with law within four weeks; disposed of, no costs; W.P.(MD)No.14441 of 2026; decided 02.06.2026 by Hemant Chandangoudar, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's reply/explanation dated 01.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four (4) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs. ¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirapalli) should be directed to consider the petitioner's reply/explanation dated 01.09.2025 and process/re-issue the passport pursuant to the re-issuance application.

¶18

Court's answer

In view of the respondent's counsel's submission that the petitioner's explanation would be considered in accordance with law and, if found satisfactory, the passport would be re-issued within the time frame fixed by the Court, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's reply/explanation dated 01.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.14441 of 2026, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 02.06.2026, Hemant Chandangoudar, J.) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirapalli, to re-issue the petitioner's passport pursuant to the re-issuance application (file No.TR2075299381325). The respondent had issued a notice dated 07.08.2025 stating that the petitioner had not furnished documents supporting the claim of Indian citizenship by descent, registration or naturalization; the petitioner replied through counsel on 01.09.2025. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the explanation would be considered in accordance with law and, if found satisfactory, the passport would be re-issued within the time frame fixed by the Court. Held: writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's reply/explanation dated 01.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.14441 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.14441 of 2026

¶7

Manjula .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs. -

¶9

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Tiruchirapalli New Municipal Complex, Thillainagar, 7th Cross, Tiruchirapalli 620 018. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court Writ Petition, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus direct the respondents to re issue the passport against the petitioner's application vide file No.TR2075299381325 dated 07.08.2025.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Sundarapandian Central Government Standing Counsel

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.14441 of 2026

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to re-issue the petitioner’s passport pursuant to the application dated 07.08.2025.

¶17

2.The petitioner had applied for re-issuance of his passport on 08.07.2025. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice dated 07.08.2025 stating that the petitioner had not furnished documents supporting his claim of Indian citizenship by descent, registration, or naturalization. The petitioner was therefore called upon to submit the relevant documents and an explanation. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply through counsel on 01.09.2025.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite having furnished a satisfactory explanation, the respondent has not processed his application for re-issuance of the passport.

¶19

2/4

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.14441 of 2026

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

¶23

petitioner’s explanation would be considered in accordance with law and, if found satisfactory, the passport would be re-issued within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶24

In view of the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply/explanation dated 01.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25