Akshaya Shree Ss v. The Regional Passport Officer/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Akshaya Shree S S Rep. by Natural Guardian, Vijayalakshmi S, No. 11/14, Aandavar Kovil Street, Puthusuripalayam Nambiyur, Erode District - 638 458.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Regional Passport Officer/ The Competent Authority, The Regional Passport Office, 1st Floor, Corporation Commercial Complex, Opposite Thandamariamman Koil, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore - 641 018, Tamil Nadu.
2.The Inspector Of Police Nambiyur Police Station, Erode - 638 458.
Respondent(s) PRAYER This Writ Petition is filed seeking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue the passport to her minor child for studying in abroad and allow her to travel abroad based on her representation dated 10.11.2025. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.Muthukrishnan For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Pavesh Kannan for R1 Mr.S.Balaji,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to issue passport to the petitioner's minor child for studying in abroad based on the petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2025.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she made an application for issuance of passport to her daughter to the first respondent on 08.08.2025. However, the 2nd respondent has orally informed the petitioner that the application of the petitioner may be rejected due to pendency of an FIR in Crime No.184/2025 against the minor on the file of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner's application is kept pending without any progress and no final report has been passed so far. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider her representation dated 10.11.2025 and to issue passport to her minor child.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ petition is no longer res integra and the similar issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in WA. No.902/2023 dated 02.06.2023 wherein this Court held that mere pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for renewal of the passport. If the person wants to
travel abroad, he has to get necessary permission from the Court, where the criminal case is pending.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent has not objected the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has made application for issuance of passport and the same is kept pending without any progress. In this background, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in WA.902 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023.
7. This Court perused the judgment passed by this Court and the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein;
''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.
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.''
8. In the present case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that only FIR has been registered against the petitioner's daughter and it has not resulted in the
Court taking cognizance of the offense. In such view of the matter, complying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2023, this Court passes the following order:
''(i) The first respondent is directed to process the application of the petitioner without insisting the permission of the Court, as there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner before any Court and a decision shall be taken as above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) If the petitioner wants to travel abroad, the petitioner would be required to seek permission from the Court where the case is pending or from this Court, if no case as yet has been filed, by filing appropriate application."
9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
20-11-2025 Tsg Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To
1. The Regional Passport Officer/ The Competent Authority, The Regional Passport Office,
1st Floor, Corporation Commercial Complex, Opposite Thandamariamman Koil, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore - 641 018, Tamil Nadu.
2.The Inspector Of Police Nambiyur Police Station, Erode - 638 458.
M.DHANDAPANI J.
Tsg 20-11-2025