IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

Tharakkesh Ramganth,

S/.Ramganth,

6-A, Pavan Garden New, Thillai Nagar,

7th Cross, Pappanaickenpudur Post,

Coimbatore-641 041.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The Government Of India, Ministry Of External Affairs,

Regional Passport Office, Coimbatore, Rep. By Its Regional Passport Officer,

First Floor, Corporation Commercial

Complex, Opp. Thandumariamman Koil,

Avinashi Road, Coimbatore-641 018.

2.State Rep. By

The Inspector Of Police,

Navalpattu Police Station, Trichy District.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to take into consideration the circumstances prevailing over the case pending against the petitioner and to consider the issue of passport to the petitioner

accepting his application seeking passport.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Marudhachalam For Respondent: Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

for R2

ORDER

The petitioner seeks for a direction, directing the first respondent to process the petitioner’s passport application.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for passport, however, the first respondent sent a communication that adverse report is sent by the police against the petitioner with regard to the criminal case in Cr.No.65 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC has been registered and the same is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tiruchirapalli as CC No.925 of 2023 and it is in pending trial stage. Therefore, seeks for a direction.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

4. By consent of both parties, this writ is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

5. At the outset, it is relevant to note that mere pendency of the criminal case, it 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 made in 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, even when conviction is recorded, it is clear that refusal of passport is only in the case of appellant is convicted during the period of five years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced for imprisonment for not less than two years.

7. In the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation made in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017 dated 27.09.2021, the appellant therein was convicted to undergo one year of imprisonment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

"Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the cri