The court held that a passport cannot be issued during pending criminal proceedings, and the applicant must comply with procedural requirements for legal travel.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.)

The present Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7900 of 2024.

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The facts of the case would disclose that since the appellant/writ petitioner's passport is about to expire on 25.08.2024, he applied for re-issue of passport on 22.01.2024 with the application No.MA1076182024124 through a DTP Center. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 13.04.2024 from the first respondent seeking clarification regarding the receipt of an adverse Police Verification Report received by the respondent, due to which, he appeared in person before the first respondent and submitted his detailed explanation. Even though the petitioner disclosed the details of the two cases, which were pending against him, he was mandated to obtain the order of the Court for issuance of passport. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to move the writ petition. The Writ Court, after hearing the submissions made, dismissed the Writ Petition and observed as follows:-

“11. When the issuance of passport during the pendency of the criminal proceedings has been required, a person seeking issuance or re-issuance of passport during the pendency of the criminal case has to approach the jurisdictional criminal court necessarily for seeking permission to travel abroad. The Court concerned may consider the notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs while granting permission to such accused persons to travel abroad.

12. In the present case, admittedly trail is pending in C.C.No.168 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alandur, Chennai. Therefore, for all purposes, it is to be construed that the criminal cases are pending for trial and the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the trial and subject to final outcome, he is at liberty to approach the Regional Passport Office to consider his application by following the due process. Contrarily, he cannot secure passport during the pendency of a criminal case and such an attempt cannot be considered by this Court.”

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the appellant has not deliberately suppressed the pendency of the criminal cases when the application for re-issue of passport was filed and failed to appreciate that there are several procedures that entitles passport to the applicant, even though there are criminal cases pending against him. It is further contended that criminal cases were foisted against the appellant based on a false complaint lodged by the complainant on personal vendetta to extort money from the appellant and apart from that, no other case is pending against the appellant and would also contend that refusing to provide passport to the appellant till the pendency of the cases is unjustifiable and is bad in law. It is further contended that except the appeal in Crl.A.No.80 of 2024, pending before the District Court, Chengalpattu, for the conviction order passed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.59 of 2021, no other case is pending against the appellant and since the appellant's business majorly requires him to fly to other countries, the untenable reasons stated by the first respondent in not providing passport to the appellant had largely affected his business causing heavy loss and hardships. However the Writ Court has failed to consider these aspects and therefore, prays for interference.

4. Heard the learned Senior Central Government Panel Counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials on record.

5. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.168 of

2022 before the Jud