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

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Nadanamylone Manivel ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs, Sasthri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

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

3.The Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.649 of 2022) ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to issue passport to petitioner based on his application vide file No.MAH075392689425 dated 25.07.2025 forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ragul Kousik For R1 and R2 : Mr.G.Subramanian Central Government Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondent for issuance of passport to the petitioner based on his application vide file No.MAH075392689425 dated 25.07.2025, forthwith.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Tamil Nadu and he is doing agricultural and social activities. He applied for issuance of a passport vide Application No.MAH075392689425 dated 25.07.2025. The 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 08.08.2025, stating that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.649 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 342, 364A, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram, in C.C.No.15 of 2025. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation on

13.08.2025 stating that he has been falsely implicated in the said case, the passport application of the petitioner has not yet been processed. Hence, the writ.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.Subramanian, 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.

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

5.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 judgment of the Apex Court in 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 the Magistrate or the Sessions Court where the criminal case is pending permits the first respondent to travel abroad, he cannot travel abroad.”

6.That apart, it is clear that, even when conviction is recorded, refusal of passport can be only in the case of the appellant being convicted during the period of five years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years.

7.In Vanga