IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA Vimaleswaran Chandrasekaran ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Regional Passport Officer Regional Passport office, Chennai Royala Towers, No.2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No. 785, New No. 158 Anna Salai Chennai 02.

2. The Inspector of Police J4- Kotturpuram Police Station, Kotturpuram chennai 85.

3. The Inspector of Police F3- Nungambakkam Police Station, Nungambakkam chennai 34.

4. The Inspector of Police D1- Triplicane Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai 05.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider petitioners representation dated 19.08.2025 delivered to the 1st respondent on 15.09.2025 and renew/ reissue petitioners passport based on his application dated 11.06.2025 vide File No. MA1075216830925 within a time frame stipulated by this Honble court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.K.Gajendhra For Respondent(s): Mr.K.K.Murralitharan, CGSC for R1 Mr.Baskaran, APP for R2 to R4

ORDER

The above Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“directing the 1st respondent to consider petitioners representation dated

19.08.2025 delivered to the 1st respondent on 15.09.2025 and renew/ reissue petitioners passport based on his application dated 11.06.2025 vide File No.

MA1075216830925 within a time frame stipulated by this Honble court.” 2. The petitioner had filed an application on 11.06.2025 for the renewal/re-issuance of his passport. Since the respondent had not processed the same, he sent a representation dated 19.08.2025 requesting the 1st respondent to process the application. As there was no response to the representation, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to process his application.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents

2 to 4 would submit that three cases are pending against the petitioner: one before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, in C.C. No. 9119 of 2018, and two before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, in C.C.

Nos. 5015 and 5016 of 2021. All the cases are at the stage of evidence.

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

5. The reason for not issuing the passport is attributed to the pendency of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore and the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. 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 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 c