Mohamed Mahadheer A v. The Regional Passport Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.02.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR A.Mohamed Mahadheer

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Race Course Road, Madurai - 625 002.

2.The Tahsildar, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

...Respondents

(Respondent Nos.2 and 3 suo motu impleaded vide Court Order dated 19.01.2026 in W.P.(MD).No.497 of 2026) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to reissue petitioner's passport by considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner dated 19.12.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajesh 1/5

For R-1 : Mr.S.V.Sambath Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel For R-2 and R-3 : Mr.B.Saravanan, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to re-issue the passport based on the explanation offered by the writ petitioner on 19.12.2025.

2. The writ petitioner was initially issued with a passport on 02.01.2013, wherein, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was mentioned as 13.07.2004. The said passport was issued on the basis of a birth certificate said to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Manamelkudi, Pudukkottai District. When the writ petitioner wanted to renew the passport, he had enclosed another birth certificate said to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Natham, wherein, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was mentioned as 16.08.2004. In view of the said discrepancy, the first respondent has called for an explanation from the writ petitioner, which has been submitted on 19.12.2025.

3. When the writ petition came up for hearing, this Court entertained a doubt with regard to both the birth certificates and accordingly, called for 2/5

reports from the Tahsildar, Manamelkudi as well as the Tahsildar, Natham. The Tahsildar, Manamelkudi, has sent a written communication to the learned Government Advocate to the effect that the birth certificate said to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Manamelkudi, is not a genuine one. However, there is no dispute with regard to the birth certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Natham.

4. In view of the fact that the first passport was issued to the writ petitioner when he was a minor, the respondents are directed to consider the request of the writ petitioner for re-issuance of the passport based upon the birth certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Natham, where the date of birth is mentioned as 16.08.2004.

5. In view of the above said deliberations, this writ petition stands disposed of and this Court directs the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 02.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No TSG 3/5

To 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Race Course Road, Madurai - 625 002.

2.The Tahsildar, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

Dindigul District.

4/5

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

TSG 02.02.2026 5/5