R.Anbagamthirupathy v. The Regional Passport Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-04-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 12935 of 2026 and WMP.No.14129 of 2026 R.Anbagamthirupathy Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Regional passport officer Passport office, First floor, Corporation Commercial complex, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 641 018 2.The Inspector of police Tiruppur city central police station, Tiruppur 3.The Union of India Rep. by Joint secretary (PSP) and (CPO), Patiala House, New Delhi 110 001 Respondent(s) PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, call for the records of the 1st respondent made in proceedings in file No. CB6075443484225 dated 8.12.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to re-issue passport to the petitioner For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.Umapathi For Respondent:
Mr.R.Sanjay for R1, R3 Central Government Standing Counsel Mr.V.Meghanathan for R2 Government Advcocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner challenges the letter of the first respondent dated
08.12.2025, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reissue passport to the petitioner.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for reissuance of passport, however, the first respondent sent the impugned communication dated 08.12.2025 stating that adverse report is sent by the police with regard to the criminal cases are pending in Cr.No.291/2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent under Sections 189(1), 126(2) & 285 of BNS and 4 of TNCP Act(STC 3004 of 2025). Challenging the said letter, the present petition has been filed.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on recored.
5. At the outset, it is relevant to note that mere pendency of the criminal case, it is not a bar for processing the application for issuance of passport. This aspect has been clearly held by the First Bench of this Court in the case of The Regional Passport Officer vs. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and another made in W.A.No.902 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as follows:- " 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 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."
6. It is also apposite to refer to the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation made in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017 dated 27.09.2021, the appellant therein was convicted to undergo one year of imprisonment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- "Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo is for a period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal.
The passport authority is directed to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this Court. Subject to the other conditions being fulfilled, the Interlocutory Application stands disposed of."
7. Considering the above judgments, I am of the view that mere pendency of the criminal cases are not a bar for processing the passport. Such view of the matter, the impugned letter dated 08.12.2025 stands set aside and there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner
and re-issue passport if otherwise, the petitioner satisfies other conditions. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is also made clear that if the petitioner has to travel abroad, he shall obtain permission from the Magistrate or Sessions Court where criminal case(s) are pending.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands allowed. 08-04-2026 dhk Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The Regional passport officer Passport office, First floor, Corporation Commercial complex, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 641 018 2.The Inspector of police Tiruppur city central police station, Tiruppur 3.The Joint secretary (PSP) and (CPO) The Union of India Patiala House, New Delhi 110 001
M.DHANDAPANI J.
dhk 08-04-2026