The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a passport objection letter. The court held that mere pendency of an FIR does not bar processing an application.
The passport authority is directed to process the application within three weeks on its own merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.21491 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P(MD)No.21491 of 2026 and WMP (MD) No.16003 of 2026
M.Vigneshwaran
... Petitioner(s)
vs.
... Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned objection letter issued by the 1st Respondent in Letter Ref. No. OBJ/1055801702/26 dated 08.07.2026, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to issue the passport to the petitioner
1/7
W.P(MD)No.21491 of 2026
pursuant to Application Reference No. TR1066998129226 dated 18.06.2026
within a time frame.
For Petitioner : Ms. K.Mahalakshmi For R1 : Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar, CGSC For R2 : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the communication
dated 08.07.2026 sent by the first respondent and consequently, to direct the first respondent to issue the passport to the petitioner pursuant to Application
Reference No. TR1066998129226 dated 18.06.2026 within a time frame.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3.By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had applied for issuance of passport. However, the application has not been processed on the ground that criminal case is pending against the petitioner.
2/7
W.P(MD)No.21491 of 2026
5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for
the second respondent submitted that an FIR is pending against the petitioner and that the same are under investigation.
6. Mere pendency of FIR cannot be a bar to the consideration of the petitioner's application for the issuance of a passport by the first respondent.
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:
''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.
3/7
W.P(MD)No.21491 of 2026
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.
7. In the light of the above, we pass the following order:
(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.
(ii) Decision shall be taken as above, within one month.''
4/7
W.P(MD)No.21491 of 2026
8.Following the aforesaid decision, the first respondent is directed to process the petitioner's passport application without insisting upon an order or permission from the jurisdictional criminal Court 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.
9. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.07.2026
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN
5/7
W.P(MD)No.21491 of 2026
To
6/7
W.P(MD)No.21491 of 2026
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
PKN
ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.21491 of 2026
DATED : 29.07.2026
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pendency of an FIR is a bar to processing a passport application.
Whether a passport applicant needs court permission merely to apply for issuance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, supraDistinguished¶37
Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992Followed¶37
Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992 · Who else cites this
M. Vigneshwaran
The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Tiruchirappalli
The Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station, Thanjavur District
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
