Madras High CourtWP(MD)/16662/2019disposed of

Muthukumar v. The Regional Passport Officer

2019-07-26Honourable Mr Justice R. Suresh Kumar4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.07.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Muthukumar

...Petitioner

-Vs1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai-625 002.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent either to renew or re-issue the passport of the petitioner by considering his application reference number 192000633154, dated 23.05.2019 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Santhanakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.V.Kathirvelu (for R1) Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Mr.S.Raghaventhere Central Government Standing Counsel Mr.V.Anand (For R2) Government Advocate

ORDER

The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent either to renew or re-issue the passport of the petitioner by considering his application reference No. 19-2000633154, dated 23.05.2019 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

1/8

2.Heard Mr.P.Santhanakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent. 3.The petitioner is already a holder of the passport and the same has been extended for a limited period, hence expired on 10.07.2019. In anticipation of the expiry of the passport on 10.07.2019, the petitioner, when he is in a foreign country had made an application on 23.05.2019 to the first respondent for renewal of the said passport. Since the same is pending with the first respondent and yet, decision is taken, the petitioner is before this Court.

4.However, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent, on instructions, would submit that, there is no proper application received by the office of the first respondent through the application, dated 23.05.2019 from the petitioner for renewal of the passport. Only a representation has been forwarded to the office of the first respondent through the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the same has been kept pending.

5.Apart from that, the learned Additional Solicitor General would further submit that, in an earlier round of litigation, when a similar renewal was required, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(MD).No.10177 of 2018. During the pendency of the said writ petition, it was returned on the ground that a criminal case is pending on the file of the second respondent and in view of the same, this Court in the said writ petition, by order dated 28.04.2018, directed the petitioner to approach the concerned criminal Court and get an order enabling the first respondent to issue a fresh passport for a limited period to be made in the said order to be passed by the criminal Court. In accordance with the said order passed by this Court dated 28.04.

2018, since the criminal case was pending against the petitioner, the first respondent had issued the passport only upto 10.07.2019 and because of such limited period, for which, the passport was issued and the same expired on 10.07.2019, now, the petitioner seeks for renewal through the representation forwarded by the father of the petitioner on 23.05.2019 and in this regard, it is not known as to whether the said criminal case which was pending agaist the pettioner ended in acquittal or still it is pending. Any how, unless that information is received from the second respondent, the application or representation, dated 23.05.2019 may not be processed further.

2/8

6.However, the learned Additional Solicitor General also made a fair submission that, since the petitioner has come down to India and if at all he wants to get reissuance of passport, he can make a fresh application to that effect on his own and once such application is made, after getting information from the second respondent as to whether the case is still pending against the petitioner and whether there has been a charge sheet filed and it becomes a Calender Case (CC) and depending upon the outcome, they drive the party ie., the petiitoner, either to go to criminal Court to get an order, or if there is a case pending only at the FIR stage, on that score, the first respondent office shall independently decide such application for reissuance of passport for a limited period and accordingly, that would be decided. 7.

On hearing the said submission made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructios, from the petitioner agreed that, the petitioner would immediately make a fresh application for reissuance of passport to the first respondent and on such application being made to the first respondent, let the first respondent process the same, as indicated above, through the submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General.

8.I have considered the said submissions made by both sides and also the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent.

9.In view of the said factual matrix, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- "(i)that the petitioner shall make a fresh application to the first respondent, immediately, requiring the first respondent to reissue the passport and on receipt of the said application, the first respondent office shall process the same and during such process, it is open to the first respondent to get information from the second respondent as to the stage of the criminal case pending against the petitioner and if the criminal case is pending only at the FIR stage, there can be no impediment for the first respondent to process the application and decide the same for reissuance of the passport. However, if a charge sheet is filed and it becomes a Calendar Case (CC) and still it is pending, suitable order can be passed by the first respondent driving the petitioner to go to the criminal Court to get an appropriate order 3/8

and once such eventuality arises and order obtained by the petitioner to that effect from the competent criminal Court is produced before the the first respondent office, accordingly, the first respondent office shall decide and final order shall be passed with regard to reissuance of the passport.

(ii)In case, there is no charge sheet filed and it is pending at FIR stage, such application to be filed by the petitioner shall be decided and final order shall be passed, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the fresh application, by the first respondent, otherwise it depends upon the order to be obtained by the petitioner from the criminal Court, as early as possible, the application can be decided by the first respondent. "

10.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (co) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai-625 002.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

+1 CC to M/s.P.SANTHANA KRISHNAN, Advocate ( SR-78113[F] dated 29/07/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-78486[F] dated 30/07/2019 ) 26.07.2019 KM /(03.09.2019) 4P 5C 4/8