IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Kannan @ Kanal Kannan ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House, New Delhi – 110 001.

3.The Inspector of Police, Kanniyakumari CCD-III Police Station, Kanniyakumari District.

(Crime No.16/2023) ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in Letter Ref.No.CNO/1052416229/25, dated 25.11.2025 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1^st respondent to renew the petitioner’s passport at the earliest.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Iyyappan For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Dilliraj Central Government Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

Challenging the order of the 1^st respondent, dated 25.11.2025, requiring the petitioner to produce the permission orders of the Court to depart from India in order to process of the application of the petitioner for re-issuance of passport, the present writ petition has been filed.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that his earlier passport expired on 14.10.2025 and he applied for re-issuance of his passport as early as on 11.08.2025. However, the 1^st respondent sent a communication dated 01.11.2025 regarding adverse police verification report. The petitioner submitted his reply on 08.11.2025 along with necessary Court orders. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent, has issued the impugned communication dated 25.11.2025, stating that the police verification is adverse due to the pendency of C.C.No.541 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Nagercoil, arising out of Crime No.16 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 295-A, 505(2) IPC and that the petitioner’s application for re- issuance of passport attracts Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Acts, 1967. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed, also for a direction for re-issuance of passport.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, as far as the case in C.C.No.541 of 2024 is concerned, the same has been stayed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13963 of 2025, by orders dated 22.08.2025 and 23.09.2025. He would further submit that the other criminal case as against the petitioner in C.C.No.5633 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 153, 505(1)(b) and 505(2) IPC has been quashed by this Court by order dated 03.10.2024 in Crl.O.P.No.26311 of 2023. Similarly, the petitioner has also been granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.10 of 2025 on the file of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai District, by order dated 07.03.2025 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3793 of 2025. Therefore, he would submit that the passport application of the petitioner may be processed.

4.Heard Mr.S.Dilliraj, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), who takes notice for the 3^rd respondent Police.

5.By consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

6.At the outset, it is relevant to note that, mere pendency of criminal case(s), is not a bar for processing the application for issuance of passport. This aspect has been clearly held by the First Bench of this Court in the case of The Regional Passport Officer vs. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and another [W.A.No.902 of 2023, dated 02.06.2023]. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as follows:-

“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 jud