1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.14185 of 2011 Arun Balajie Duraivel ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Road, Race Course, Madurai-2. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruppulani Police Station, Thiruppulani, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to call for remarks (Police Verification) from the respondents 2 and 3 with a consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to intimate the petitioner for his appearance before them for enquiry and consequentially to direct the first respondent to issue passport on the basis of application preferred by the petitioner in File No.MDU A00520411, Key No.65005/0411 dated 28.02.2011, within a period that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff For Respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan, Central Govt. Counsel for R1 Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Government Advocate for R2 and R3 O R D E R The petitioner applied for issue of a passport. On the ground that the petitioner was not available for enquiry, the third respondent could not send a Verification Report to the first respondent. Consequently, the passport application is not processed forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition. 2. Heard Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Saravanan, learned Central Government Counsel for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the first respondent and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents 2 and 3. 3. Though the respondents 2 and 3 have termed the report sent by them as adverse report, it appears to be a misnomer. The only adverse thing that the respondents 2 and 3 have noticed against the petitioner is that he was not available for enquiry. 4. But the fact remains that the petitioner is a student of AMET University, Peraiyur, Chennai, studying B.E. Harbour Engineering and Offshore Technology. Therefore, if he is not available at house, it means that he is actually attending college. Therefore, it is not a report adverse to him, but a report which should be appreciated. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to send the relevant papers to the respondents 2 and 3 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within one week from the date of receipt of the papers from the Passport Office, the third respondent shall serve a notice on the parents of the petitioner indicating the date and time which would suit the third respondent, on which the petitioner may appear. On that date, the petitioner may appear for enquiry and thereafter the second and third respondents shall forward the report to the first respondent within two weeks. After the reports are furnished by the respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, within a further period of four weeks. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Road, Race Course, Madurai-2. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruppulani Police Station, Thiruppulani, Ramanathapuram District. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.43612) W.P.(MD)No.14185 of 2011 13.12.2011 KM NSV/19.12.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/