Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
MOHAMMED RIYAS K. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) | WP(C) NO. 11516 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.FAHAD HUSSAIN, SMT.THASNEEM A.P.
For the Respondents: O.M.SHALINA
A pending criminal case should not impede the renewal of a passport application.
Headnote:The judgment pertains to a writ petition for the renewal of a passport pending criminal proceedings. The court finds that non-consideration of the application based on pending criminal cases is unjustified, mandating a timely resolution of the application. The petitioner must travel only with court approval for the criminal case; the writ petition is thus disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks passport renewal despite criminal case. (Para 1) |
| 2. government acknowledges pending case but assures application will be considered. (Para 2) |
| 3. court directs timely processing of renewal application. (Para 3) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the holder of an Indian Passport. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the passport before the 2nd respondent as evidenced by Ext.P2 receipt. The petitioner states that he is the 3rd accused in O.S. No.278 of 2022 of Air Customs, Calicut International Airport, which is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The said court, as per Ext.P3 order dated 11.02.2025 permitted the petitioner to travel abroad for a period of one year. However, the application for renewal of the passport is not so far considered by the 3rd respondent due to the pendency of the said criminal case. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to consider and dispose of the Petitioner’s application for reissue/renewal of passport (Exhibit-P2) in a time-bound manner, in accordance with law;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to reissue/renew the passport of the Petitioner forthwith, in accordance with law, without insisting upon a subsisting order permitting him to travel abroad, and subject to such conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem flt and proper.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents.
3. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, on instructions, submitted that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the period of permission granted to the petitioner to travel abroad by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam expired.
The pendency of the criminal case cannot be a reason for non consideration of the application for renewal of passport. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of passport in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner shall travel abroad only with the permission of the jurisdictional court where the criminal case is pending.
The writ petition is disposed of.
