Madras High Court
Ndumaran Palaniappan vs Union Of India on 7 January, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.A.No.336 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 25.06.2025
Delivered on 01.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.No.336 of 2025
Ndumaran Palaniappan
Son of Palaniappan
aged about 91 years,
P.No.16, 2nd Main Rad,
Nootancherry Link Road,
Sabapthy Nagar,
Madambakkam, Chennai-600 126.
... appellant
Versus
1.Union of India,
rep. By the Secretary to Government,
Ministry of External Affairs,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Regional Passport Officer,
Chennai Royala Towers,
No.2 and 3, IV Floor,
Old No.785, New No.158,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm )
W.A.No.336 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying
to set aside the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by learned single Judge in
W.P.No.12136 of 2024 and to direct the respondents to reissue the Passport
to the appellant for another 10 years on he basis of the application bearing
File No.MA307529751823, dated 25.04.2023.
For appellant(s): Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondent(s): Mr. K.S.Jeyaganeshan for R1
No appearance for R2
ORDER
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.) This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12136 of 2024, praying to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to reissue the Passport to the appellant for another 10 years on the basis of the application bearing File No.MA307529751823, dated 25.04.2023.
2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are as follows:
2.1 The appellant herein is a senior citizen and he is the President of World Tamil Confederation and former Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. He originally obtained a Passport in the year 1981 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 which has been renewed from time to time till 2012 and thereafter, it got expired on 08.10.2022. Therefore, the appellant applied for renewal of his Passport. The 2nd respondent, on consideration of his renewal application, sought for certain clarifications including adverse police verification report.
The appellant vide his reply, dated nil, June, 2023 explained in detail regarding criminal cases and also stated that pendency of FIR was not a bar for renewing the Passport. However, as there was delay in processing the renewal of his Passport, the appellant approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.28488 of 2023, which, came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2023, directing the 2nd respondent to put the appellant on notice regarding findings of enquiry, afford him a reasonable opportunity and pass final orders on merits.
2.2 Pursuant to the above said orders, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notices on 08.12.2023 and 05.01.2024, to which, the appellant also submitted his explanations. However, the 2nd respondent vide order dated 15.02.2024, rejected the application for renewal of the Passport, apart from referring to appeal remedy of appeal available under Section 6(2)(c) and 3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 6(2)(d) of the Passport Act, primarily on the ground of national security and the presence of the appellant in abroad is likely to prejudice the friendly relation of India with foreign country. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.12136 of 2024. This Court, vide order dated 07.01.2025, having discussed the matter in detail, while setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 15.02.2024, remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent, with a direction to consider the explanation to be submitted by the appellant regarding adverse findings in the police report and pass final orders on its own merits and in accordance with law.
3. Aggrieved by the same, without awaiting the final orders to be passed by the 2nd respondent in pursuant to the order, dated 07.01.025 passed in W.P.No.12136 of 2024 by the learned single Judge, the appellant has come forward with the present Writ Appeal.
4. Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that though many criminal cases have been registered against the appellant, he has not been punished by any Court based upon his 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 actions and speeches and even his detention under POTA Act, 2002 was quashed by this Court and mere pending criminal case and FIR registered is not a bar for grant/renewal of Passport and that the appellant all along was holding Passport from the year 1981 and getting it renewed from time to time despite pending of criminal cases there was no instance of any detrimental activity on the part of the appellant towards national sovereignty, while so, the 2nd respondent rejected the application for renewal of Passport by citing the reason that the presence of the appellant in abroad is likely to prejudice the friendly relation of India with foreign country, which has no substance at all and the same cannot be sustained. He pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly set side the impugned rejection order, however, instead of directing the 2nd respondent for renewal of the Passport, remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent for consideration on receipt of the explanation from the appellant regarding enquiry report, dated 16.11.2023 which was already available in the typed set of papers filed by the respondents, which would ennure no result and hence, he would urge this Court to set aside the order of the learned single Judge and direct the respondents to re-issue the Passport to the appellant for 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 another ten years.
5. The learned counsel would also contend that the order of rejection of the application of the appellant for re-issue of the Passport relying upon Section Section 6(2)(c) and 6(2)(d) of the Passport Act, 1967 by stating that issuance of Passport to the appellant will be detrimental to the interest and security of India is without any basis and not tenable and that the so-called police report does not contain any case against the appellant which was pending before any Court and denial of Passport without any valid reason or basis, would affect the fundamental right of the appellant guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in “Menaka Gandhi versus Union of India” 1978(1)SCC 248, wherein, it has been held that the right to travel is fundamental right and the same cannot be curtailed in violation of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He would state that even though all these contentions were placed before the learned single Judge, but without granting the relief sought for by the appellant, remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for consideration, which cannot be sustained and liable 6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 to be interfered with.
6. As regards the impugned rejection order, dated 1502.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent invoking Section 6(2)(c) and 6(2)(d), holding that the issuance of Passport will be detrimental to the interest and security of India by mere relying upon media interview published on 14.02.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the appellant had sent his detailed explanation dated 12.1.2024, stating that on earlier occasions, he made similar statements, however, at no point of time, his statements had created any apprehension or affect the diplomatic relationship with neighbouring country or posed any national security and in fact, the Passport Authority had renewed his Passport during 1991, 2002 an 2012.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent would contend that the learned Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration of the issue pertaining to the re-issue of Passport to the appellant after receipt of the explanation from the appellant to the adverse police enquiry report dated 16.11.2023, but the 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 appellant without complying with the order of the learned single Judge, directing him to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks, the appellant has come forward with the present Writ Appeal and insisting upon the Court to give positive direction to re-issue the Passport without adhering to the legal formalities. The learned counsel would point out that the learned single Judge has set aside the impugned rejection order only on the ground that the appellant was not furnished with a copy of the adverse police enquiry report dated 16.11.2023 which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, now the adverse police enquiry report dated 16.11.2023 was made readily available for the appellant as filed in a typed set of papers served on the appellant, it is for the appellant to abide by the order of the learned single Judge and co-operate with the Passport Officials.
8. The learned counsel would also contend that the the Passport Officials are empowered under Section 6 of the Passport Act 1967 to refuse the issuance or renewal of a passport under the circumstances where criminal cases are pending against the applicant and under Section 6(2)(c) 8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 and 6(3)(d), if the Passport Officer is of the opinion that the departure of the applicant from India is likely to be detrimental to the security of India or his presence out of India is likely to prejudicially affect the friendly relationship of India with any country, the authority can reject the application. In the present case on careful examination of the matter, the authority has come to the conclusion based on a media interview published on 14.02.2023 given by the appellant, claiming that the LTTE leader Mr.Velupillai Prabhakaran is alive and will be back soon”, etc., the authority had issued notice dated 08.12.2023 and after finding that the explanation given by the appellant is not satisfactory, the Passport Officer has rightly rejected the application of the appellant, which deserves no interference.
9. The learned counsel would also contend that as against the original impugned rejection order, the appellant is having appeal remedy, which has been specifically mentioned in the impugned rejection order, however, the appellant on his own surmises that it would be an empty formality, without exhausting the appeal remedy, has rushed to this Court.
9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for 1st respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
11. In fact, as against the original rejection order, dated 15.02.2024 impugned in the Writ Petition, though an efficacious appeal remedy is available under the Act, however, without exhausting the same, the appellant approached this Court and the learned single Judge has also entertained the writ petition, after taking note of the fact that the appellant was not furnished with a copy of the adverse police enquiry report dated 16.11.2023 which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, has set aside the impugned rejection order and remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration after considering the explanation from the appellant towards adverse findings in the police report dated 16.11.2023 and also directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. At the out set, we do not find any infirmity in the said order of the learned single Judge in order to interfere with the same. However, it appears that the 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 appellant, without approaching the 2nd respondent and submitting his explanation, has preferred the present appeal, questioning the order of the learned Judge. The only apprehension of the appellant in not approaching the 2nd respondent is that already the 2nd respondent had formed an opinion that issuance of passport to the appellant will be detrimental to the interest and security of India and also passed the original impugned rejection order dated 15.02.2024, as such, on reconsideration of the matter, no purpose would be served and further, when once the learned single Judge has set aside the impugned rejection order, ought to have directed the 2nd respondent to renew the Passport without remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that there was no instance of any detrimental activity on the part of the appellant towards national sovereignty and there was no substance or basis to form such opinion by the 2nd respondent that the presence of the appellant in abroad is likely to prejudice the friendly relation of India with foreign country. Further, as regards the appeal remedy, the learned counsel would 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 point out that appellate authority is only a subordinate of 1st respondent who filed the counter affidavit in support of the rejection order, as such, filing of the appeal, would be an empty formality. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Issuing and renewing the Passport is within the exclusive domain of the Passport authority, which is the statutory authority and it can refuse or impound passport based on specific grounds outlined in the Act. Therefore, if a statute provides a mechanism for an authority to act and discharge its duties, and that mechanism is considered adequate and effective, Writ Courts may be hesitant to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, Courts can review the Passport authority's decision, only when there are allegations of arbitrariness, illegality or violation of fundamental rights. It is well settled that decisions rendered by administrative authorities can be interfered with by Writ Courts in exercise of Article 226 powers, however, sparingly. In “W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim', reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of interference under Article 226 in an administrative action held as under:
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 “31. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. ...”
32.The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse.
33. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.”
13. However, in the present case, as already observed above, in compliance to the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner has not approached the 2nd respondent, by which, it appears that the 2nd respondent 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) W.A.No.336 of 2025 has not passed any final orders on reconsideration of the matter as directed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, since the matter is yet to be decided by the Passport authority, 2nd respondent herein, this Court is not inclined to sit over the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent and decide the matter straight away at the instance of the appellant based on the contentions raised by him, which we found that the same are untenable and devoid of merit.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed as devoid of merits. The appellant shall approach the 2 nd respondent as directed by the Writ Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on such approach, the 2nd respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner and pass final orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, within four weeks thereafter. No costs.
(J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
01.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
suk
To
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm )
W.A.No.336 of 2025
1. The Secretary to Government,
Union of India,
Ministry of External Affairs,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Regional Passport Officer,
Chennai Royala Towers,
No.2 and 3, IV Floor,
Old No.785, New No.158,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm )
W.A.No.336 of 2025
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
suk
in W.A.No.336 of 2025
01.09.2025
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm )