IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.11.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.M.P.No.47690 of 2025 P.Pandi Lakshmi ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Chennai, Chennai Royala Towers No.2 and 3 IV Floor, old no.785, New no.158, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai South Commissionerate, Chennai.

3.The State rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai-600 087. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, call for the entire records relating to the order issued by the 1^st Respondent in File No.MA107554402725 dated 27.10.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reissue the passport within a time frame fixed by this honourable Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Dhanasekaran For Respondents : Mr.Kasi, Central Government Counsel for R-1 : Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate for RR-2 & 3

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the rejection order dated

27.10.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent seeking a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent for re-issuance of passport to the petitioner within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

2. Mr.Kasi, learned Central Government Counsel takes notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent. Mr.S.Balaji, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice on behalf of respondents 2 & 3.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that while her application for renewal of passport was under consideration, the impugned show cause notice dated 27.10.2025 came to be issued by the 1^st respondent calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation with reference to the adverse police verification report which refers to the Criminal case pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.58 of 2023 for the offences under Section 294 (b), 324, 506(2) of IPC on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Poonamallee. Challenging the said show cause notice, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra as the similar issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023 wherein, it is held that, mere pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for renewal of passport. If the person wants to travel abroad, he has to get necessary permission from the court where the criminal case is pending.

5. Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has no objections to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. On the above contentions, this Court heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and perused the materials available on record.

7. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as the similar issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.902 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023, for better appreciation, the relevant paragraghs are extracted hereunder:-

“5. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC Online Bom 1992 to which one of us (S.V.Gangapurwala, CJ.) was a party, has followed thee judgment of the Apex Court on the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, supra and directed the respondent therein to process the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent cannot travel abroad without the permission of the Court where the criminal case is pending, would not be an impediment for the passport authority to consider the application for renewal of the passport. No doubt, if the first respondent has to travel abroad and the criminal case is pending, then unless th