Arunkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC2 Jul 2026WP(MD)/18515/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

passport renewal; fresh passport application; mere pendency of criminal proceedings no bar; Regional Passport Officer Tiruchirappalli; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226; W.P(MD)No.18515 of 2026; W.A.No.902 of 2023; Regional Passport Officer Chennai v. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih; Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992; Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu; six weeks timeline; permission from jurisdictional criminal court for foreign travel; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to process the petitioner's passport application without insisting on an order/permission from the jurisdictional criminal court, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; petition disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶¶45

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether mere pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner operates as a bar to the first respondent (Regional Passport Officer) considering his application for issuance/renewal of a passport. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

Mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a bar to the consideration of the petitioner's application for issuance of a passport by the first respondent (Regional Passport Officer).

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Following the First Bench decision in W.A.No.902 of 2023, the first respondent is directed to process the petitioner's passport application without insisting on an order or permission from the jurisdictional criminal court where a criminal case is pending, and to take an appropriate decision on the application on its own merits and in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶¶42

Key takeaways

If the petitioner intends to travel abroad while the criminal case is pending, it is open to him to obtain the necessary permission from the jurisdictional criminal court before undertaking such travel.obiter¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), single judge (M. Dhandapani, J.), disposed of W.P(MD)No.18515 of 2026 (Arunkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli and The State of Tamil Nadu), filed under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Mandamus for renewal of the petitioner's passport (File No.TR2076800885526 dated 11.05.2026), which had not been processed owing to a pending criminal case under investigation. Held: mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a bar to the passport authority's consideration of the application. Following the Hon'ble First Bench decision in W.A.No.902 of 2023 [The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai v. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and another, judgment dated 02.06.2023], the first respondent was directed to process the application without insisting upon an order or permission from the jurisdictional criminal court, to decide it on its own merits and in accordance with law within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he remains free to seek the necessary permission from the jurisdictional criminal court before undertaking such travel. Petition disposed of; no costs. Within the extracted First Bench passage, the Bombay High Court decision in Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992) and the Apex Court decision in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu were referred to.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18515 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18515 of 2026

¶7

Arunkumar ... Petitioner(s)

¶8

vs.

¶9

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

¶10

2.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Pudukottai District. ... Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to renew the petitioner's passport by considering the petitioner's application in File No.TR2076800885526 dated 11.05.2026 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raghuman For R-1 : Mr.B.Ponpandi, CGSC

¶13

1/7

¶14

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

¶15

For R-2

¶16

W.P(MD)No.18515 of 2026

¶17

: Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to renew the petitioner's passport by considering the petitioner's application in File No.TR2076800885526 dated 11.05.2026 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

2. Heard Mr.S.Raghuman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Ponpandi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, and Mr. R.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who take notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶21

3. By consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶22

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for the issuance of a fresh passport. However, the application has not been processed on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner.

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.18515 of 2026

¶26

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the second respondent submitted that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and that the same is under investigation.

¶27

6. Mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a bar to the consideration of the petitioner's application for the issuance of a passport by the first respondent.

¶28

7. The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. An identical issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2023 [The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai v. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and another], by judgment dated 02.06.2023, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

¶29

''5. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court,

¶30

in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992 , to which one of us (S.V.Gangapurwala, CJ.) was a party, has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu , supra and directed the respondent therein to process the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport.

¶31

3/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.18515 of 2026

¶34

6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent cannot travel abroad without the permission of the Court where the criminal case is pending, would not be an impediment for the passport authority to consider the application for renewal of the passport. No doubt, if the first respondent has to travel abroad and the criminal case is pending, then unless the Magistrate or the Sessions Court where the criminal case is pending permits the first respondent to travel abroad, he cannot travel abroad.

¶35

7. In the light of the above, we pass the following order:

¶36

(i) The writ appellant shall process the application of the first respondent for renewal of passport without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the first respondent. If the first respondent is travelling abroad, then the first respondent would be required to seek permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending.

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.18515 of 2026

¶40

(ii) Decision shall be taken as above, within one month.''

¶41

8. Following the aforesaid decision, the first respondent is directed to process the petitioner's passport application without insisting

¶42

upon an order or permission from the jurisdictional criminal Court where a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, and to take an appropriate decision on the application, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, it is open to the petitioner

¶43

to obtain the necessary permission from the jurisdictional criminal Court before undertaking such travel.

¶44

9. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands

¶45

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

02.07.2026

¶47

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes TSG

¶48

5/7