ORDER : The Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in VIII/402/APP-113/2014 dated 25.08.2015 and the impugned order of the second respondent in F.No.1300282/CCRM/MDU dated 09.10.2014 quash the same. By the said order dated 09.10.2014, the second respondent herein has decided to impound the passport of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has obtained the passport by suppression of material facts. Consequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal as against the order of the second respondent dated 09.10.2014 before the first respondent on 22.11.2014. By the order dated 25.08.2015, the first respondent uphold the decision of the second respondent to impound the passport of the petitioner and further decided to place the petitioner's name in Prior Approval Category (PAC) for a period of six months from the date of the order of the first respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 2. The facts which are necessary to decide the issue as follows:- 2.1. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate in Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner is affiliated to a political party. He has contested in the Assembly Election in the year 2009 as a Member of Legislative Assembly at Ilayankudi Assembly Constituency. He had obtained passport from the respondents to enable him to travel abroad. From the date of issuance of passport, he has not involved any offence much less under the passport Act. In this situation, to his shock and surprise, the petitioner has received a notice from the second respondent dated 02.01.2013 stating that after the issuance of the passport, the respondents received adverse police verification report against the petitioner from the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. 2.2. It is further averred in the affidavit that on the date of issuance of passport, there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner. Hence, on receipt of the communication from the second respondent, the petitioner sent a detailed explanation to the second respondent stating that he did not involve any criminal case or offence during the relevant point of time. Further, he has averred in his affidavit that there was a possibility of motivated criminal case due to the involvement of Gandian way of struggle and hunger strike. Further, he has averred in his affidavit that there was a possibility of motivated criminal case due to the involvement of Gandian way of struggle and hunger strike. The same is not pertaining to moral turpitude but it is due to a political activity of a political party. 2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter from the passport authorities stating that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner and thereafter, adverse police report was duly communicated by the second respondent in Crime No.183 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station. Till the filing of passport application for renewal of passport, there was no summons or warrant from any court or from the police. Only after receiving a notice from the passport authorities, he came to know that a case is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, in S.T.No.141 of 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Ramnad and sought for early disposal. Accordingly, the case was split up as STC.No.48 of 2013 from STC.No.141 of 2010 and after through trial and investigation of the criminal case, by order dated 24.07.2013, the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges. 2.4. In this situation, there was a reply from the second respondent on 21.08.2013 stating that the petitioner has suppressed the pendency of a criminal case in Crime No.183 of 2009. Therefore, there was a proposed penalty of Rs.5,000/-for not declaring pendency of a criminal case. Therefore, the petitioner again gave further explanation on 02.05.2014 to the proposed penalty of Rs.5,000/-stating that he was not aware of pendency of a criminal case at the time of applying for passport. However, the second respondent by his order dated 09.10.2014 holding that the passport is impounded due to violation of Section 10(3)(b) and 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act. After receipt of the order of impounding the passport of the petitioner, another show cause notice dated 30.10.2014 was issued holding that as to why action should not be taken under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act for which also, the petitioner gave explanation. 2.5. In the meantime, there is a decision to impound the passport or to pay penalty of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent contending that the order of the second respondent is illegal. 2.5. In the meantime, there is a decision to impound the passport or to pay penalty of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent contending that the order of the second respondent is illegal. However, it is alleged that the first respondent, without considering the objections of the petitioner, rejected the appeal vide his order dated 25.08.2015. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated earlier. 3. A counter affidavit is filed inter alia stating that it is true that the petitioner has applied for a passport and obtained the same too. However, on police verification, an adverse police remarks were received stating that the petitioner is involved in Ramnad Kenikarai Police Station in Crime No.183 of 2009 under Sections 143,147,353 and 188 IPC and a criminal case is pending against him in Judicial Magistrat No.II Court, Ramnad for summon for appearance. Based on which, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and advised him to surrender the passport to the respondents. Pursuant to which, the petitioner furnished his explanation that he would surrender the passport in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court since he is going to file the case regarding this matter. Thus, he did not surrender the passport to the respondents. 3.1. Further, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent on 21.08.2013 and he submitted a copy of the judgment dated 24.07.2013 in case No.141 of 2010 delivered by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram acquitting him from the criminal case. Therefore, it is seen that the petitioner has suppressed the material information regarding pendency of criminal case in Crime No.183 of 2009 for which adverse police verification report was received from the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram District. Thus, the respondents sought for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not aware of the criminal case pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate Court at the time of applying for passport, though he is aware of the fact that FIR is pending against him. Since the pendency of FIR cannot be considered as a ground for rejection for issuing a passport, he has not mentioned the same in the application. Since the pendency of FIR cannot be considered as a ground for rejection for issuing a passport, he has not mentioned the same in the application. The petitioner came to know about the pendency of criminal case only after receiving the first show cause notice from the second respondent. Further, till he applied for passport, the petitioner has not received any warrant or summons from the criminal court. After coming to know that a case in STC.No.141 of 2010 is pending, immediately, the petitioner filed a petition to split up the case and after through trial, on 24.07.2013, he was acquitted from the criminal case by the concerned Court. Therefore, absolutely, there is no reason for impounding the passport of the petitioner. Stating all these facts, the petitioner prayed this Court for the quashing of the order of the second respondent. 5. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner has suppressed the material fact, the order impugned in this Writ Petition came to be passed to impound the passport of the petitioner, which need not be interfered by this Court. 6. I heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. Keeping the submissions made on either side, since the petitioner has specifically pleaded that he is not aware of the criminal case pending against him at the time of applying for passport and in this regard, no warrant or summon has been issued by the concerned Court and further the pendency of the first information report is not a ground for impounding the passport, this Court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice it would be fit and proper that the matter could be remitted back to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, the order impugned in this Writ Petition stands set aside and the petitioner is directed to produce all the relevant documents to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to establish the fact that he was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case on the date of applying/issuance of passport. On such production of documents, the first respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks, thereafter. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.