Saravanan v. The Regional Passport Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Trichirappalli.
2.State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Kantharavakottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue the passport to the petitioner, based on the petitioner's Application No.TR1076928458124, dated 11.09.2024, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 30.10.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan For 1st Respondent : Mr.Mahendran Central Government Standing Counsel For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate
ORDER
By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
1/5
2.The prayer in the Writ Petition reads as follows:- "To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue the passport to the petitioner, based on the petitioner's Application No.TR1076928458124, dated 11.09.2024, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 30.10.2024."
3.The petitioner has made an application for re-issuance of passport, which are expired on 20.08.2024 and the application Number is TR107628458124. During police verification, it is found that the FIR in Kantharvakottai Police Station in Crime No.12 of 2014 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 324, 379 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act is pending against the petitioner. In view of the same, the 1st respondent has required the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer in the passport office on all working days between 09.00 a.m., to 12.00 p.m., by letter dated 23.10.2024. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner duly appeared before him and had submitted his explanation. However, his explanation is still kept pending. Hence, this Writ Petition came to be filed.
4.The learned Government Advocate for the 2nd respondent would submit that the matter is still pending in FIR stage and has not culminated in filing a final report.
2/5
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and carefully perused the entire materials available on record. 6.It is a settled proposition of law that a mere pendency of FIR cannot be a bar for consideration of claim for issuance of passport. This Court in the case of W.Jaihar William Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (2) CWC 684 has held that mere pendency of FIR cannot be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings, unless Judicial Magistrate takes cognizance of offence, on filing of charge sheet on completion of investigation against the accused. Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right.
7.In view of the same, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 11.09.2024 to renew his passport without reference to the FIRs lodged against him and issue renewed passport, if he is otherwise eligible for the same. The first respondent shall comply with the said direction on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3/5
8.With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes Mrn To 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Trichirappalli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Kantharavakottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
4/5
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn 11.11.2024 5/5