W.P(MD)No.19890 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P(MD)No.19890 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD).No.14681 of 2026 Sargunam ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai-625 002, Tamil Nadu. 2.The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in Letter Ref No:SCN/1054243670/2026, dated 19.03.2026 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and in consequence thereof direct the first respondent to issue passport to the petitioner. 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19890 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.K.Manavalan For Respondents : Mr.Mahendra Prabhu, CGSC for R-1 : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz for R-2 Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Letter Ref No:SCN/1054243670/2026 of the first respondent dated 19.03.2026 and consequently to direct the first respondent to issue passport to the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.K.Manavalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.Mahendra Prabhu, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent; and Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent. 3. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19890 of 2026 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made application for renewal 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. 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, criminal cases have been registered and hence the first respondent issued the impugned communication and further submitted that it is only a communication calling for explanation from the petitioner. 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 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19890 of 2026 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 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: 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19890 of 2026 (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 in Letter Ref No:SCN/1054243670/2026, dated 19.03.2026 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. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19890 of 2026 8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TSG To 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai-625 002, Tamil Nadu. 2.The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni District. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.19890 of 2026 M.DHANDAPANI, J. TSG W.P(MD)No.19890 of 2026 14.07.2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis