Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan dismissed a writ petition seeking the issuance of a passport, citing the pendency of a criminal case registered in 2010. While declining the relief sought by the petitioner, the Court simultaneously issued strict directions to senior police officials of Tiruvarur District to appear before the Court due to the prolonged delay in filing the final report in the concerned case. The bench directed the Superintendent of Police and other relevant officers to appear in person and produce records related to the investigating officers who handled the matter since 2010. The case has been posted for appearance on June 9, 2025.

The petitioner, Prasanth Selvaraj, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirapalli, to consider and issue a passport pursuant to his application bearing reference No.TR1065057704523, dated February 9, 2023.

Also Read: Supreme Court Closes Contempt Proceedings With Strict Directives | Orders Afforestation, Environmental Fee On DDA For Delhi Ridge Tree Felling | Warns Against Recurrence

According to the petitioner, he had submitted the passport application through the official website of the Regional Passport Office on February 9, 2023. The application was registered under reference number TR1065057704523 and taken on file by the concerned authorities.

Subsequently, the petitioner received a communication dated August 21, 2024, from the first respondent, which was marked as letter reference No. OBJ/319781501/24. The letter informed the petitioner that an adverse police report had been received from the second respondent, the Inspector of Police, Muthupettai Police Station, Tiruvarur District. The report indicated that a criminal case bearing Crime No.27 of 2010 was pending against him.

In response, the petitioner had approached the High Court by filing Criminal Original Petition No.19087 of 2023, seeking to quash the said FIR. However, this petition was dismissed by the Court on August 23, 2023, with a direction to the police authorities to file a final report in the matter.

Despite the Court’s directive, the petitioner contended that the second respondent had not filed the charge sheet or final report in the said criminal case. He further argued that the mere pendency of a case cannot be a valid ground for withholding the issuance of a passport and that such action violates the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India.

The petitioner maintained that the application for the passport remained pending solely due to the alleged pendency of the criminal case, and that no formal order had been passed by the first respondent either approving or rejecting the application. This inaction prompted the present writ petition seeking judicial intervention.

The petition came up for hearing before the Honourable Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan. The learned counsel Mr. P. Muthamizh Selvakumar appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Mr. Dhruva represented the first respondent, and Dr. C.E. Pratap, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appeared for the second respondent.

Upon examination of the submissions and the materials on record, the Court found that the first respondent had withheld the passport application due to the adverse police report concerning the criminal case in Crime No.27 of 2010.

The offences listed in the case included those punishable under Sections 147, 148, 153, 324, 347, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act.

As the application had not been acted upon by the first respondent due to the pendency of the criminal case, the Court determined that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition.

 “Based on the adverse remarks received from the second respondent, i.e., a case in Crime No.27 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 153, 324, 347 and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, was pending against the petitioner and that the first respondent has not passed any order and kept the application of the petitioner pending.”

Also Read: Madras High Court Upholds Night-Time Ban And Aadhaar KYC | State Empowered To Regulate Real Money Games In Public Interest

The Court took note of the unusual and unjustified delay in filing the final report by the police despite the matter being more than a decade old. It was recorded: “The F.I.R. in Crime No.27 of 2010 is still pending from the year 2010, and that the second respondent has not filed the charge sheet/final report till date.”

This observation led to the Court initiating further action to seek accountability from the concerned police officials. “Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District and Investigating Officer of second respondent / Police Station, are directed to appear before this Court on 09.06.2025 at 10.30 a.m.”

The Court also ordered the production of a list of all Investigating Officers who were assigned to the case since the FIR was registered.

“Further, the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur District is directed to produce the list of Investigating Officers, who are holding the post of Investigating Officer in the concerned Police Station from the date of registering the F.I.R. in Crime No.27 of 2010 to till date.”

 “Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Muthamizh Selvakumar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Dhruva, Advocate for R1; Dr. C.E. Pratap, Government Advocate

Case Title: Prasanth Selvaraj v. Regional Passport Officer & Anr.

Case Number: W.P. No.16956 of 2025

Bench: Justice P. Velmurugan

[Read/Download order]