CHENNAI: A division bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by noted political leader and president of the World Tamil Confederation, Pazha Nedumaran, finding no infirmity in the order of a single judge who directed him to approach the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) with explanations regarding the adverse findings that led to the denial of his passport renewal.
The RPO, in an order passed in 2024, rejected the renewal application on the grounds that Nedumaran’s activities were detrimental to the interest of the country and that a visit abroad could cause prejudice to India’s relationship with other nations.
The bench noted that Nedumaran had approached the court with an appeal against the single judge’s order without exhausting the alternative remedy available under the Passport Act.
“At the outset, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the single judge to interfere with it. However, the appellant preferred the appeal in the court without approaching the RPO and submitting his explanation, questioning the order of the judge,” the bench, consisting of justices J Nisha Banu and M Jothiraman, said in a recent order.
The bench stated that it did not find merit in the contention of Nedumaran’s counsel that submitting explanations or filing an appeal with the competent authority would be of no avail since the RPO had formed an opinion.
The judges observed, “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 a passport based on specific grounds outlined in the Act.”
They further reasoned that if a statute provides a mechanism for an authority to act and discharge its duties, and that mechanism is considered adequate and effective, courts may be hesitant to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, except to review decisions in cases of arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of fundamental rights.
The bench concluded that it was not inclined to sit over the jurisdiction of the RPO and decide the matter straightaway at the instance of the appellant based on his contentions, which it found “untenable and devoid of merit”, since the appellant had not approached the RPO.
However, the bench directed that Nedumaran shall approach the RPO within two weeks with his explanations, upon which the latter shall consider the case and pass final orders in accordance with the law within four weeks.
Advocate KS Jeyaganeshan appeared for the Ministry of External Affairs, while Balan Haridas represented Nedumaran.
Nedumaran originally obtained the passport in 1981 and renewed it until 2012. Later, it expired in 2022. He applied for renewal, but the RPO sought clarifications based on an adverse police verification report over his statement that “Velupillai Prabhakaran is still alive”.
He submitted explanations, but there was a delay in processing, which led to litigation. The RPO eventually rejected the application for renewal on 15 February 2024, on the grounds that it could trigger another round of litigation.