The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere pendency of criminal cases should not be a sole ground for refusing passport facilities, and the passport authority must inform the applicant about their right to apply to the concerned Criminal Court for permission to travel abroad.

1. The Petitioner focussed the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records of the First Respondent issued in Letter No. 1300050-CPC-MDU, dated 22.04.2016 and to quash the same as illegal one and further he has prayed to adhere to the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs in G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 and in the light of the order, dated 27.05.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6623 of 2010.

2. According to the Petitioner, he was issued with a Passport bearing No.U038364, dated 08.04.1983 by the Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli. Later, the same was renewed in Passport No.R.348644 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli. Thereafter, he was issued with a Passport bearing No.F-2495417 on 05.03.2015 by the First Respondent and the same was valid till 04.03.2015.

3. The stand of the Petitioner is that from the date of issuance of Passport, there is no adverse remarks against him in violation of any of the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. However, in the year 2012-2013, he was falsely implicated in the following three Criminal Cases:-

(i) Crime No.187 of 2012, on the file of Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.

(ii) Crime No.196 of 2012, on the file of Keelavalavu Police station, Madurai District and

(iii) Crime No.12 of 2015, on the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai.

In the meanwhile, he received a communication from the First Respondent/The Regional Passport Officer, Madurai that the passport issued to him sought to be impounded as per Section 10(3)(e) and (h) of the Passport Act. He filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.15414 of 2013 challenging the said order, dated 05.09.2013 issued by the First Respondent and the same is pending. He also filed M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 seeking stay of the operation of the order and this Court granted an order of interim stay on 18.09.2013.

4. Added further, it is the version of the Petitioner that he filed an application before the First Respondent/The Regional Passport Officer, Madurai for re-issuance of passport through his application, dated 20.07.2015 and the First Respondent assigned the File Number as MD 1078706831315. He had also mentioned in the application about the pendency of criminal cases registered against him. Although the said application was filed as early as on 28.07.2015, the First Respondent had not processed the same for quite a long time. Therefore, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus in W.P(MD)No.6720 of 2016 on 04.04.2016 and this Court ordered notice of motion on 06.04.2016 and the same is pending.

5. When that be the facts situation, the First Respondent/The Regional Passport Officer, Madurai had issued the impugned order, dated 22.04.2016, whereby, he had refused to process the Petitioner's application on the ground that he had received report on 05.08.2015 from the Second Respondent/The Superintendent of Police, Madurai confirming that a criminal case in P.R.C.No.42 of 2013 against him is pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District and the action would attract Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order, dated 22.04.2016 passed by the First Respondent is without application of mind and only based on the recommendation of the Second Respondent and in fact, the First Respondent had not applied his mind independently.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that when two Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.15414 of 2013 and W.P(MD)No.6720 of 2016 are pending before this Court, the First Respondent had failed to apply his mind before passing the impugned order.

8. The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that in Law, mere pendency of the First Information Report cannot be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings in respect of the offe