LI Network
Published on: October 14, 2023 at 11:22 IST
The Madras High Court, issued a mandamus instructing the primary respondent to reissue the petitioner’s passport.
Initially, the petitioner’s application for passport renewal in 2019 was rejected due to an ongoing criminal case. Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that this criminal case had concluded with an acquittal.
Consequently, a writ petition was filed with the objective of obtaining a mandamus that would direct the primary respondent to reissue the petitioner’s passport, taking into consideration that the application fell within the court’s stipulated time frame.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the case, held that, “In view of the above development, there must be no difficulty for the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner seeking for re-issuance of passport, since the only ground that was put against the petitioner was the pending criminal case.”
The petitioner had held a passport since 2003, which had expired in 2017. Upon applying for renewal, the first respondent had sought clarification regarding a pending criminal case involving the second respondent, the Police. The renewal of the passport was declined on these grounds.
The court took note of the fact that the criminal case against the petitioner had culminated in an acquittal, as emphasized in the statement: “When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the second respondent submitted that the criminal case ended in acquittal in S.T.C.No.1018 of 2019 by Judgment, dated 13.09.2023.”
In light of the acquittal, the Court directed the first respondent to proceed with the petitioner’s application for passport reissuance without any obstacles related to the previously pending criminal case.
The first respondent was instructed to process the petitioner’s application and issue the passport, provided that the petitioner meets all other requirements. This directive was to be executed within four weeks from the date of receiving the court’s order. The writ petition was disposed of with the aforementioned direction.
Case Title: S. Yoosuf v. The Regional Passport Officer & Anr.
