IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA Eswaramoorthi S/o.Krishnamoorthy No.1/190, Mela Street Melapalaiyur, Virudachalam Taluk Cuddalore District – 606 110.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Regional Passport Officer Regional Passport Office Royala Towers, No. 2 and 3, 4^th Floor Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai Chennai – 2.

2. The Inspector of Police Karuveppilankuruchi Police Station Cuddalore District.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider petitioner’s application Reference File No.MA6065671381025 pending on the file of 1^st respondent in pursuant of petitioner’s application dated 08.09.2025 and pass orders.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Thillai Kumar Central Government Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.L.Baskaran Govt. Advocate [ Crl.Side] for R2

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking a mandamus to the 1^st respondents to consider petitioner’s application in Reference File No.MA6065671381025 and to issue passport.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted his application for issuance of passport in the 1^st respondent’s portal on 08.09.2025, which was taken on file in Reference No.MA6065671381025/2025 and the date of interview was also fixed. Thereafter, vide letter of the first respondent dated 22.11.2025, the petitioner was informed that an adverse report against him was received from the second respondent.

3. The petitioner would submit that a case in Crime No.219/2025 was registered against him by the second respondent for the offences under Section 189(2), 126(2) of BNS Act, on the ground that on account of his brother’s dead in a road accident, the petitioner and his relatives had conducted a protest, obstructing the public transport. Hence, the case came to be registered. According to the petitioner, the charges levied against him is not a grave offence and no final report was filed before the jurisdictional Court.

4. The petitioner would further submit that his intention seeking passport is to visit the relatives and friends who are residing abroad and not to settle permanently in abroad.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent-police would submit that as against the petitioner, a case in STC.No.2209 of 2025 has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhachalam.

6. Heard the rival submissions of the counsels and this Court also perused the records.

7. The reason for not issuing the passport is attributed to the pendency of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhuchalam. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and another arising out of SLP(C) No.17769 of 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a similar case of passport which was not being granted on account of the fact that the appellant therein was an accused in a case being investigated by NIA. The learned Judges after taking into consideration the statutory provisions and notifications relating to the issue on hand and after extracting the Passport Act and Rules of the G.O., has observed as follows :

“8. From a conjoint reading of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Passports Act, a structured scheme emerges. Section 5 is the starting point. It prescribes the manner in which an application for a passport is to be made and requires the passport authority, subject to the other provisions of the Act, to decide the application by issuing or refusing the passport through a written order. Section 6 qualifies that power and sets out, in an exhaustive manner, the grounds on which the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document. Sub-section (1) deals with refusal of endorsements for particular countries. Sub-section (2) governs refusal of issue itself a