Veeramani v. The Regional Passport Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ Veeramani ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Regional Passport Officer, Madurai, Race Course Road, Madurai.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.
3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni District.
... Respondents PRAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to reissue the passport to the petitioner based on the petitioner's application dated 18.06.2019 pending on the file of the 1st respondent in file No.MD1072215651119 dated 19.06.2019 For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illanchezian For Respondents : Mr.V.Kathirvelu Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.V.Malaiyedran Central Government Standing Counsel for R-1 Mr.P.Kannithevan Additional Govt. Pleader for RR-2 and 3
O R D E R
Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr.V.Malaiyedran, learned Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice for the first respondent. Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Additionial Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the second respondent.
1/3
2.This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction, directing the respondents to reissue the passport to the petitioner based on the petitioner's application dated 18.06.2019 pending on the file of the 1st respondent in file No.MD1072215651119 dated 19.06.2019.
3.The petitioner has applied for reissuance of passport. Since certain discrepancies were observed in the application, the petitioner was called to appear before the first respondent and explain the same. The petitioner appeared before the Passport Authority, also gave a reply on 04.09.2019 and also produced relevant documents. At that time, he came to know that F.I.R in Cr.No.45 of 2015 is pending against him and that the personal particulars of his mother's name and spouse's name differed and on that ground, passport was not issued. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4.The contention of the petitioner is that pendency of F.I.R is not a bar for grant of passport and therefore, the respondents shall be directed to reissue his passport. However, the notice issued by the first respondent reveals that certain explanation is called for with regard to the personal particulars of his mother's name and spouse's name and the place of the petitioner. 5.Now, the petitioner is willing to appear before the first respondent and explain all those particulars. 6.Considering the circumstances of the case, a direction is issued to the respondents that in the event of the petitioner satisfactorily explaining the discrepancies found in the previous passport and present passport application, they shall consider reissuance of passport. It is made clear that pendency of F.I.R is not a bar for issuance of passport. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks, after appearance of the petitioner.
7.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vs 2/3
To 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Madurai, Race Course Road, Madurai.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.
3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni District.
+1 CC to M/s.V. MALAIYENDRAN, Advocate ( SR-99751[F] dated 20/11/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.V. ILLANCHEZIAN, Advocate ( SR-100220[F] dated 21/11/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-100358[F] dated 21/11/2019 ) 20.11.2019 JMN(22.11.2019) 3P : 7C 3/3