R. Rajesh Vs The Regional Passport Officer

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's passport application in online application TR1076689414826 dated 16.04.2026 within time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Arun Prasad

¶14

For Respondents :Mr.P.Murugesan Central Govt. Standing Counsel for R1

¶15

Mr.P.Mohamed Riyaz Govt. Advocate (crl. side)

¶16

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No.17449 of 2026

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's passport application in online application TR1076689414826 dated 16.04.2026 within time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶22

The grievance of the petitioner is that, though an application has 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 a criminal case has been registered against him.

¶23

Mr. R. Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the second respondent, on instructions, submitted that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.18 of 2017.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.17449 of 2026

¶29

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

Therefore, 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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. TR1076689414826 dated 16.04.2026 and issue the passport, subject to the petitioner satisfying all other eligibility criteria prescribed under law.

¶34