IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA A.Syed Abuthahir ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Regional Passport Officer Chennai Royala Towers No.2 and 3 IV Floor Old No. 785, New No.158 Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.

2. The Inspector Of Police H-6 R.K.Nagar Police Station, Chennai District.

..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 reissue the passport to the petitioner by considering the petitioners application dated 29.11.2025 vide Application Ref No. 25-1067050985 within the frame as fixed by the court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Balaji For Respondent(s): M/s.R.Sugumar, CGSC For R1 ;

Mr.L.Baskar GA(crl.Side) For R2.

ORDER

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

“directing the 1st respondent to reissue the passport to the petitioner by considering the petitioners application dated 29.11.2025 vide Application Ref No. 25-1067050985 within the frame as fixed by the court.”

2. The petitioner had filed an application on 29.11.2025 for the re-

issuance of his passport. Since the 1^st respondent had not processed the same, he sent a representation dated 18.12.2025 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 1^st respondent to process his application.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent would submit that, in all the cases pending against the petitioner, action has been dropped.

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 several criminal proceedings against the petitioner.. 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 criminal proceedings before a court in India under clause (f). Section 7 then addresses the duration of a passport. It provides that a passport shall continue in force for such period as may be prescribed, but also permits the authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant, to issue a passport for a shorter period in an appropriate case. Section 8 deals with the converse situation where a passport has already been issued for a shorter period. It permits extension of such a passport, but expressly states that the provisions of the Act shall apply to such extension as they apply to the issue of the passport, thereby linking an extension back to the same statutory cond