IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA Karthick S/o Sambandam, No 11/1 PWD Bangalow Road, Muthupet Post and Taluk, Thiruvarur - 614 704.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Regional Passport officer Office of the Regional Passport Office Municipal Complex, Thillai Nagar

7th Cross, Tiruchirappalli - 620 018.

2. The State Represented by its Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Thiruvarur District.

3. The State Represented by its Inspector of Police, Muthupettai Police Station, Muthupettai Taluk, Thiruvarur 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 re-issue the passport bearing No. M9802148 upon the application submitted by the petitioner on 13.01.2025 and pass orders.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Arivazhagan For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Balaji Central Government Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2 & R3

ORDER

The writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to the first respondent to re- issue his passport bearing No.M9802148, which had expired on 01.06.2025.

2. The petitioner would submit that he is the permanent resident of Thiruvarur District. He had been issued with Passport bearing No.M9802148 in the year 2015, and the same had expired on 01.06.2025. Therefore, on 13.01.2025, he had submitted an application before the first respondent seeking re-issuance of passport, with all necessary documents. His application was kept pending with processing. Later, vide letter of the first respondent dated 22.02.2025, he was informed that adverse verification reports have been received from respondents 2 and 3 against him referring to Crime No.316 of 2018 on the file of Muthupettai Police Station, Crime No.107 of 2018 on the file of DCB Thiruvarur and Crime No.3 of 2011. Contenting that mere pendency of criminal cases is not a bar for issuing or re-issuing the passport, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents on instructions would submit three criminal cases have been filed against the petitioner and details of which are as follows :

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

5. The reason for not renewing the passport is attributed to the pendency of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Court, Thiruthuraipoondi. 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 renewal 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 and again begins with the words “subject to the other provisions of this Act”. It obliges the authority to refuse issue where any of the situations in clauses (a) to (i) are present, including the pendency of criminal proceedings before a court in India under