SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
MANOJ MANIKKAN – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14197 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ, SHRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
For the Respondents: SHRI.C.DINESH, SMT. O.M. SHALINA, SRI. P.S. APPU

The Court mandates timely consideration of passport renewal applications, adhering to established legal precedents.

Headnote:The statute relevant to this case concerns passport renewal processes as established under various legal precedents. The petitioner requests the renewal of their passport based on prior judicial orders without additional requirements. The court finds it necessary to direct the respondent to make a timely decision regarding the renewal, adhering to established legal principles. The pivotal issues of the case surround the procedural validity of the passport renewal application. The court emphasizes the need for timely adherence to statutory procedures in decision-making processes. The court ultimately renews the passport application subject to established legal procedures.

Table of Content
1. request for passport renewal based on past judicial orders. (Para 1)
2. court mandates timely decision on passport applications. (Para 2)
3. final order for disposing of the writ petition. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the first respondent to renew the passport of petitioner for a period of minimum 10 years on the basis of exhibit P4 order without insisting to produce fresh orders from the learned magistrate within a reasonable period which this honorable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

2. Such other writ, order or direction which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

And

3. Dispense with filing of translation of vernacular documents produced along with writ petition.”

2. Taking note of the fact that no orders have been passed on the application seeking renewal of passport, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to pass orders on the same in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 2nd respondent shall also abide by the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India [2025 KHC Online 8045] while taking a decision as directed above. The petitioner, however, shall leave the country only after getting permission from the Court concerned.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top