W.P(MD)No.19314 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P(MD)No.19314 of 2026 L.Ganesha Moorthy ... Petitioner(s) vs. 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai - 2. 2.The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the letter in Ref.No.SCN/1054728035/26 dated 24.04.2026 issued by the respondent no. 1 requiring clarification from the petitioner for issuance of passport and quash the same, consequently directing the respondent no.1 to issue passport to him on the basis of his application File No. MD1066661733826 on the file of the respondent no. 1 within a time stipulated by this Court. 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19314 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.I.Sabeermohamed For R-1 : Mr.V.Murali Ganesh, CGSI For R-2 : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the letter in Ref.No.SCN/1054728035/26 dated 24.04.2026 issued by the first respondent requiring clarification from the petitioner for issuance of passport and consequently to direct the respondent no.1 to issue passport to the petitioner on the basis of his application File No. MD1066661733826 on the file of the first respondent. 2. Heard Mr. I.Sabeermohamed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.V.Murali Ganesh, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who takes notice for the second respondent. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19314 of 2026 3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made application dated 09.04.2026 for issuance of passport, while so, the petitioner received the impugned communication calling upon the petitioner to provide suitable explanation regarding the pendency of the criminal case, pursuant to which, the petitioner gave his explanation in person, however, there is no response. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and that similar issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023. 5. It is seen from the record that, as against the petitioner, a criminal case in Crime No. 162 of 2024 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 326 and 506(ii) IPC and hence the first respondent issued the impugned communication and further submitted that it is only a communication calling for explanation from the petitioner. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19314 of 2026 6. The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. Similar issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2023 [The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai Vs. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and another] dated 02.06.2023, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: ''5. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992, to which one of us (S.V.Gangapurwala, CJ.) was a party, has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, supra and directed the respondent therein to process the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent cannot travel abroad without the permission of the Court where the criminal case is pending, would not be an impediment for the passport authority to consider the application for 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19314 of 2026 renewal of the passport. No doubt, if the first respondent has to travel abroad and the criminal case is pending, then unless the Magistrate or the Sessions Court where the criminal case is pending permits the first respondent to travel abroad, he cannot travel abroad. 7. In the light of the above, we pass the following order: (i) The writ appellant shall process the application of the first respondent for renewal of passport without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the first respondent. If the first respondent is travelling abroad, then the first respondent would be required to seek permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending. (ii) Decision shall be taken as above, within one month.'' 7. Following the decision cited supra, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned communication. Accordingly, the communication letter in 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19314 of 2026 Ref.No.SCN/1054728035/26 dated 24.04.2026 of the first respondent is set aside. The first respondent is directed to process the application of the petitioner without insisting the permission of the Court, where the criminal case is pending against the petitioner and take appropriate decision, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner wants to travel abroad, then the petitioner has to get necessary permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 09.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes TSG To 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai - 2. 2.The Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, Sivagangai District. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19314 of 2026 M.DHANDAPANI ,J. TSG ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.19314 of 2026 DATED : 09.07.2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis