Disposed

Periyasamy v. The Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC8 Jul 2026WP(MD)/19111/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to renew his passport despite a pending criminal case. The court, following the First Bench's decision in the Samsudeen Mohamed Salih matter, held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot bar processing a passport application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to process petitioner's passport application without insisting on criminal court permission and take a decision within four weeks.

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

¶1

W.P(MD)No.19111 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19111 of 2026

Periasamy

... Petitioner

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, New Trichy Municipal Office Building, Thillai Nagar 7th Cross, Trichy - 620 018.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Vattathikottai Police Station, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to renew petitioner Passport in Passport No. P6245038 in reference to petitioner application No. TR1076851569326 dated 20.05.2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Authorities, within the stipulated time fixed by this Honble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may

¶13

1/7

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.19111 of 2026

¶16

deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Malaimaran For R1 : Mr.G.Mariselvam, CGSC For R2 : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to process the petitioner's application in File No.TR1076851569326, dated 20.05.2026 and to issue a passport to the petitioner.

¶20

2.Heard Mr.K.Malaimaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.G.Mariselvam, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent; and Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent.

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

W.P(MD)No.19111 of 2026

¶24

3.By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.19111 of 2026

¶32

Mohamed Salih and another], by judgment dated 02.06.2023, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

¶33

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

¶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

¶36

order:

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.19111 of 2026

¶40

(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.

¶41

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

¶42

8.Following the aforesaid decision, the first respondent is directed to

¶43

process the petitioner's passport application without insisting upon an order or permission from the jurisdictional criminal Court where the criminal cases are 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 four 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 to obtain the necessary permission from the jurisdictional criminal Court before undertaking such travel.

¶44

5/7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD)No.19111 of 2026

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

08.07.2026