Vinoth Kumar v. The Passport Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29.11.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, Rajakkamanagalam Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari 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 renew/reissue the passport to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's Passport Application No.MD2086845871924, dated 22.03.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin For 1st Respondent : Mr.Sankara Raman Central Government Standing Counsel For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl) 1/5

ORDER

The prayer in the Writ Petition reads as follows:- "To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to renew/reissue the passport to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's Passport Application No.MD2086845871924, dated 22.03.2016."

2.The petitioner is the holder of passport No.Z3515760 and it is about to expire on 21.03.2026. Hence, the petitioner has made an application to the first respondent, seeking renewal of passport and the same was taken on file in MD2086845871924. While so, on receipt of adverse police verification report, the 1st respondent had issued a communication on 23.01.2024, requiring an explanation from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and has submitted his explanation. However, the same was not considered. Hence, the Writ Petition came to be filed. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.) appearing for the 2nd respondent on instructions would submit that Crime No.51 of 2019 culminated in laying a charge sheet in C.C.No.354 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, the 2/5

learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent and carefully perused the entire materials available on record. 5.The petitioner is given liberty to move the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, for the relief now sought for. As and when such miscellaneous petition is filed, it shall be numbered and disposed of within a period of three weeks thereafter. The learned Trial Judge shall bear in mind that right to travel abroad is a fundamental right. The petitioner's career and avocation may be at stake if he is denied the right to go abroad. Therefore, the learned Trial Court unless there are extraordinary circumstances shall not deny relief. Of course, the period of validity of passport will have to be restricted. It is also open to the learned Trial Judge to stipulate appropriate conditions to ensure that the prosecution is not stalled on account of the petitioner-s absence from India. If necessary, the applicant can be directed to file an application under Section 228 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by executing a special vakalat.

6.Based on the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner shall move the jurisdictional Regional Passport Officer who shall dispose of the petition~mentioned application in terms of the said order.

3/5

7.This Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

29.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes Mrn To 1.The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Madurai, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai 625 002.

2.The Inspector of Police, Rajakkamanagalam Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

Copy To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 4/5

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Mrn 29.11.2024 5/5