Mrs.Vinothini v. The Regional Passport Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P No. 37054 of 2025 Vinothini ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, New Municipal Complex Thillainagar 7th Cross Tiruchirappalli-620 018.
2.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Nannilam Police Station Nannilam Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned order/letter Ref.No.OBJ/318214651/24 dated 12.06.2024 and quash the same and directing the 1st respondent to issue a passport to the petitioner, by considering her Application No.TR8066535777724 within the time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner :
Mr.V.Vivek For R1 :
Mr.A.Poornachandran Central Government Standing Counsel For R2 :
Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5
O R D E R
Mr. A.Poornachandran, learned Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent and Mr.S.Balaji, learned Government Adbvocate (Crl.Side) takes notice for the 2nd respondent. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission stage itself.
2. The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the rejection order passed by the 1st respondent and to direct the 1st respondent to issue a passport to the petitioner, by considering her Application No.TR8066535777724, within a time frame fixed by this Court.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner is a social activist and a criminal case has been registered against her, while she was participated in public protests during Covid-19 pandemic period. The petitioner has made an application before the first respondent to issue a passport to her. The first respondent sent a rejection letter dated 12.06.2024 stating that her application for passport request has been rejected after the receipt of the 2nd respondent police report contains the information that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner. 2/5
Challenging the same, the present writ petition has filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pendency of a criminal case could not be a ground to deny the passport facilities to the petitioner and hence, this Court may issue a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that if petitioner submits a fresh application, the same will be considered and necessary orders will be passed in accordance with law.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that mere pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for issuing the passport and hence, the order of the 1st respondent is liable to 3/5
be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 12.06.2024 is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application for issuance of passport to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter. 8.With the above direction, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
06.10.2025 uma To 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, New Municipal Complex Thillainagar 7th Cross Tiruchirappalli-620 018.
2. The Inspector of Police Nannilam Police Station Nannilam Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
4/5
M.DHANDAPANI,J uma W.P. No.37054 of 2025 06.10.2025 5/5