IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Periyasamy Chinnappa S/o.Chinnappa, No. 38/39, South Street, Periyanagalur, Ariyalur District - 621 704 Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi - 110 011

2.The Regional Passport Officer Regional Passport Officer, Thiruchirapalli, Municipal Complex, Thillainagar 7^th Cross, Thiruchirapalli District - 620 018.

3.The Inspector of Police Kairlabath Police Station, Ariyalur District.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in refusing to renewal of the petitioner’s passport bearing No. N5737969 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to renewal of the above mentioned passport to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Ranganathan For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Subramanian, for R1 and R2 Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

for R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents

1 and 2 to renew of the passport of the petitioner bearing No. N5737969.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made application for renewal of passport on 12.08.2025. On 08.09.2025 the second respondent issued a show cause notice stating that the second respondent had received an adverse police verification report stating that the applicant is involved in two cases in Crime Nos.442/2021 and 84/2023 for the alleged offence under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(1) and 21(2) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 pending before the third respondent police. Therefore, the petitioner's application is kept pending without any progress and no final report has been passed so far. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to issue a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to renew the petitioner's passport within a time frame fixed by this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ petition is no longer res integra and the similar issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in WA. No.902/2023 dated 02.06.2023 wherein this Court held that mere pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for renewal of the passport. If the person wants to travel abroad, he has to get necessary permission from the Court, where the criminal case is pending.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has not objected the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has made application for renewal of passport and the same is kept pending without any progress. In this background, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in WA.902 of 2023 dated

02.06.2023.

7. This Court perused the judgment passed by this Court and the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein;

''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 the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, supra and directed the respond 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 the Magistrate or the Sessions Court where the criminal case is pendin