SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
M.JANE JANET AJITHA – Appellant
Versus
The Regional passport officer – Respondent
WP No. 8353 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Thenmozhi R.
For the Respondents: R.Sugumar, V.Meghavathan

The court directed the passport authority to consider a minor's passport renewal application and pass orders in accordance with the law within a stipulated timeframe after hearing interested parties.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the passport authority to renew or reissue the passport of a minor child without requiring the father's consent. The petitioner stated that the application for the minor's passport renewal had been kept pending consideration. The primary issue was whether the passport authority should be directed to process the pending application. The court, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, reasoned that the limited relief sought was for the authority to consider the application and pass orders in accordance with the law. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

Prayer :

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus Directing the 1st Respondent to Renew / / Reissue the Passport of the 2nd petitioner without insisting upon the consent or singnature of the father based on the application in the File No. MA1076156303725.

Mr.V.Meghavathan,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R-3

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to Renew/Reissue the Passport of the 2nd petitioner without insisting upon the consent or signature of the father pursuant to the petitioner’s application.

Mr.R.Sugumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. Mr.V.Meghavathan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent. As no adverse order is being passed against the 2nd respondent, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.

It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for renewal of passport of his minor child the 2nd respondent. However, the said application is kept pending consideration. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, it would suffice, if this Court issues a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s application 20.12.2025 for renewal of passport and pass appropriate orders on the same within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

On the above contention, this Court heard the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

In view of the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s application dated 20.12.2025 for renewal of passport and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties.

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. There shall be no order as to costs.

05-03-2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

NHS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top