Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal    (Petitioner) Vs. Union of India   (Respondents)

WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2022

• CHANDURKAR & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ., delivered by Firdosh P. Pooniwalla J.)

Facts: The Petitioners have filed the present Petition seeking quashing and setting aside of two Orders dated 22nd December 2020 and one Order dated 23rd December 2020 issued by Respondent No.2 refusing to renew the passports of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have also sought a Writ of Mandamus ordering and directing Respondent No.2 to renew the passports of the Petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is the mother of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

Issue: Whether a person can be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:

The Petitioners have challenged the aforesaid Orders of Respondent No.2 on the ground that the right to issuance/renewal of a passport is a fundamental right guaranteed to the Petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and by refusing to renew the passports of the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 had acted arbitrarily and beyond jurisdiction. The Petitioners have submitted that renewal of their passports cannot be refused on the said ground. The Petitioners have also submitted that Respondent No.2 ignored the fact that earlier passports have been issued to Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at the very same address. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

It is the case of Respondent No.3 that Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 (“the Passports Act”) provides for an Appeal against such an order of refusal to renew a passport. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have an equally efficacious alternate remedy and therefore this Writ Petition ought not to be entertained. In support of this submission, Respondent No.3 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Radha Krishan Industries v/ State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Held: The court disposed off the present petition and held that, “A reading of the grounds given in Section 6 of the Passports Act clearly shows that the ground mentioned by Respondent No.3 in the impugned orders dated 22nd December 2020 and 23rd December 2020 is not found in Section 6 of the Passports Act. In these circumstances, in our view, by refusing to renew the passports of the Petitioners on the ground mentioned in the said Orders, Respondent No.2 has acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction. Even otherwise, in our view, a person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport. This is more so if, like in the case of the Petitioners, the person actually resides at the said address, and, as in the case of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, earlier passports have also been issued containing the same address.”