IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

Shanthi Perumal

D/o.Perumal St.Joseph Hospices, Paleswaram, Edayambudur Post,

Kanchipuram-603 107

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Ministry Of External Affairs

Rep By Its Secretary,

Ministry of External Affairs,

South Block, New Delhi-110 011

2.Regional Passport Office, Chennai

Rep By Deputy Passport Officer,

Rayala Towers, No.2 And 3, Iv Floor,

Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600 002

3.State Rep By

Inspector Of Police, X7J8 + Mj 7

Thiruvalam Police Station,

Vellore District-632 515

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to issue a passport for the

petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Prabhakaran

For Respondent: Mr. D.Rameshkumar, CGSC, for R1 & R2 Mr. C.Baskaran, Gov. Advocate(crl.side)

for R3

ORDER

The petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.11.2025 and consequently issue a fresh passport to the petitioner.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 15.07.2025, she has applied for issuance of a passport. Thereafter, the second respondent, by communication dated 11.08.2025, sought an explanation regarding the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner before the third respondent in Crime No.262 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353 of IPC. On 15.11.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation and furnished the explanation sought for. Even thereafter, though the petitioner had submitted all the required documents, and furnished the explanation, no order has been passed on the representation submitted by him. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

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, is not a bar for processing the application for issuance of passport. This aspect has been clearly dealt with by a Division 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 paragraphs of the judgment read 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 the conviction is recorded, issuance of passport can be refused only in the cases where the applicant is convicted during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced for imprisonment of 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 though 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 portio