AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter in Ref.No. SCN/1056098270/26 dated 24.07.2026 on the file of 1st respondent and consequently direct the 1st respondent to issue passport to petitioner by scrutinizing the petitioner's application File No. MDA077039600626 dated 25.06.2026 in accordance with law, within time stipulated by this Court.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for issuance of passport. However, the impugned objection letter/notice dated 24.07.2026 has been issued seeking clarification on the ground that criminal case is pending against the petitioner.
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the second respondent submitted that an FIR is pending against the petitioner and that the same is under investigation.
Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials placed before this Court.
Mere pendency of FIR cannot be a bar to the consideration of the petitioner's application for the issuance of a passport by the first respondent.
The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. An identical issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai v. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and another1, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
“5.A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992, to which one of us (S.V.Gangapurwala, CJ.) was a party, has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, supra and directed the respondent therein to process the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport.
6.The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent cannot travel abroad without the permission of the Court where the criminal case is pending, would not be an impediment for the passport authority to consider the application for renewal of the passport. No doubt, if the first respondent has to travel abroad and the criminal case is pending, then unless the Magistrate or the Sessions Court where the criminal case is pending permits the first respondent to travel abroad, he cannot travel abroad.
7.In the light of the above, we pass the following order:
(i)The writ appellant shall process the application of the first respondent for renewal of passport without insisting for permission of the Court, where a criminal case is pending against the first respondent. If the first respondent is travelling abroad, then the first respondent would be required to seek permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending.
(ii)Decision shall be taken as above, within one month.”
Following the aforesaid decision, the impugned objection letter/notice dated 24.07.2026 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to process the petitioner's passport application without insisting upon an order or permission from the jurisdictional criminal Court and to take an appropriate decision on the application, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, it is open to the petitioner to obtain the necessary permission from the jurisdictional criminal Court before undertaking such travel.
With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Footnotes
- 1.WA.No.902 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023