M.Subramanian v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W .P(MD)No.9896 of 2024 and WMP(MD)No.8971 of 2024 M.Subramanian : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Secretariat, New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai.
3.The Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai-625 002.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.
5.The Inspector of Police, CCB, Chennai. : Respondents (R5 is suo motu impleaded, vide Court order, dated 21/11/2024) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation, dated Jan. 2023 and show cause notice submitted by the petitioner 1/7
with regard to Ref.No.FCI/31732821/24, dated 14/03/2024 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to issue Passport to the petitioner on application seeking re-issue of passport, dated 28/06/2018 and 12/05/2022 in the light of the information furnished by the 3rd respondent to the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar in File No.MD1071299459318, dated 10/07/2018 within a time frame as fixed by this court. For Petitioner : M/s.W.Pamelin For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.Sankararaman Central Government Standing Counsel For R4 and R5 : Mr.Vaikam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Criminal side)
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent 1 and 2 as well as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents 4 and 5.
2.The petitioner was the holder of a passport No.A8166423, which was valid for 20 years between 26/08/1999 and 25/08/2019.
2/7
3.It appears that the petitioner had also used the passport and travelled abroad till 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have misplaced the passport and therefore, applied for an issuance of duplicate passport in the year 2019 after obtaining the certificate of last passport document report from the Tamil Nadu Police Department, on 25/06/2018. The petitioner's passport application was, however, rejected on the ground that fresh passport was issued with the petitioner's name on the date of birth on 26/08/2004 valid upto 25/08/2019 being the date on which the petitioner's original passport expired. 4.It appears that the petitioner's identity was impersonated and a duplicate passport was issued on 26/05/2004 by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, vide passport No.E9175068.
5.In the counter that has been filed by the third respondent on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the passport application filed by the petitioner has been closed, on 28/03/2024.
3/7
6.This court, by its order, dated 21/11/2024 has already suo motu impleaded the 5th respondent with a view to elicit the status of the investigation in response to the alleged impersonation and issuance of the passport No.E9175068, on 26/05/2004 in the name of the petitioner.
7.The communication, dated 10/07/2018 itself indicates that the photo of the person to whom the passport has been issued is different from the passport, which was issued to the petitioner. That would require separate investigation by the respondents 4 and 5. However, that should not come in the way of issuance of the fresh passport to the petitioner, if there are no records indicating that the petitioner was responsible for the impersonation at the time of issuance of the passport No.E9175068, dated 26/05/2004. 8.Since the passport application filed by the petitioner has also been closed, at this distance of point, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application for issuance of fresh passport. On such filing, the same shall be considered by issuing a passport to the petitioner. This will be without 4/7
prejudice to the investigation pending. It is for the respondents 4 and 5 to find out the person who has impersonated the petitioner and has secured the passport, on 26/08/2004. In case, it is found that the petitioner was also involved in the issuance of duplicate passport, the petitioner may be proceeded in accordance with law.
9.With the above said directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19/08/2025 Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No NCC : Yes/No er 5/7
To, 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Inspector of Police, CCB, Chennai 3.The Government Advocate (Criminal side) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
C.SARAVANAN,J er 19/08/2025 7/7