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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
Kavitha Manikandan – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
W.P.No.37349 of 2025 | W.M.P No.41791 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr.V. Muthu Pandi
For R2 to R6: Ms.R.Durga Rani Central Government Standing Counsel

The court emphasized the necessity of due process and notification in administrative actions related to passport impounding.

Headnote:The judgment assesses the legal implications under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the impounding of the petitioner's passport based on mismatched address. The court found the impounding order issued in 1995 lacked due process as the petitioner had not been adequately notified. The respondent was mandated to reconsider the petitioner's passport application. The court resolved to direct the third respondent to issue appropriate orders regarding the application within a defined timeframe, thus ensuring compliance with natural justice.

Table of Content
1. requirements for valid notification prior to passport impounding. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding mismatched address and administrative response. (Para 3)
3. judicial directive for timely reconsideration of the passport application. (Para 4)

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.1995 passed by the 4th respondent and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's pending application and issue a passport to him within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner obtained Indian Passport on 27.07.1992 issued by the 4th respondent in the address of the petitioner's grand mother and the passport was expired on 26.07.2002. The petitioner approached the 5th respondent office in the year 2008, for renewal of the passport and they instructed the petitioner to obtain the birth certificate. Thereafter, in the year 2013, the petitioner approached the 6th respondent along with the birth certificate and they informed that the birth of place is mismatched. But, the petitioner received the File Closure Letter on 03.04.2024 from the 5th respondent stating that the petitioner's passport was impounded. The petitioner filed an application before the 4th respondent on 16.08.2024 seeking information regarding the impounding of passport under Right to Information Act and a reply was received by her on 30.08.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed first appeal on 26.09.2024 for the reason that neither she received any show cause notice nor served on her prior to impounding the aforesaid passport as stated in the order dated 30.08.2024 and the same was disposed. Again, the petitioner preferred second appeal and the same was also disposed. On 30.08.2025, the petitioner received the order copy of the second appeal along with the copy of the show cause notice dated 13.06.1994 and intimation letter dated 17.02.1995 for impounding the passport. Hence the present writ petition is filed with the above said prayer.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the address mentioned in the petitioner's application is mismatched and thereby, the petitioner's passport was impounded in the year 1995 and the same was intimated to the petitioner vide order dated 08.09.2025 by the Regional Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, the 4th respondent herein through its e-mail. Further, the 5th respondent/Regional Passport Officer, Madurai was also informed by the 3rd respondent through its e-mail dated 04.09.2025 that upon verification of records, it has been found that the application under File No.MD207442292322 has been quoted with remarks "Applied for changes in Place of Birth and Date of Birth. Further, the 5th respondent was also requested to provide the current status and the petitioner's passport application is under review at the office of the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, the 3rd respondent herein and appropriate orders will be passed for issuance of passport to the petitioner, if everything is correct, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. In view of the above, the 3rd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

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