( 1 ) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been placed before us in pursuance of the referring order dated 4. 11. 1966 made by my learned brother S. K. Kapur, J. considering the matter to be important and, therefore, deserving of consideration by a larger Bench.

( 2 ) THE petitioner claiming to be a citizen of India and a regular Travel Agent and adviser of Messrs Lufthansa Airlines and other International Airlines working in Delhi for the last more than three years, made an application to the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, respondent No. 1, on 5. 7. 1966 along with the requisite guarantee bond and original character certificate signed by the Competent Authority. This application had been made by the petitioner in anticipation of aninvitation by Messrs Lufthansa German Airlines who had decided to introduce a flight between Hamburg and Oslo and are to operate on inaugural flight on 12. 11. 1966. The petitioner was to leave on II. II. 1966. By means of a letter dated 11. 10. 1966, the petitioner received an invitation from the Airlines mentioned above. According to this invitation, all expenses of this trip were to be borne by the head office of the said Airlines in Germany. This invitation was brought to the notic of respondent No. 1 and the Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi, respondent No. 3 in the course of interviews. Indeed the petitioner had personally explained the nature of his visit to respondent No. 3 in July and October, 1966 and had also. offered to produce any guarantee which may be required but respondent. No. 3 had verbally informed the petitioner that the same was unnecessary. The petitioner, according to his averments, has steadily built up reputation as a leading Travel Agent and Adviser and has a lucrative business and is also an income-tax payee. On 17. 10. 1966, respondent No. 3 verbally informed the petitioner that the passport could not be granted to him without assigning any reasons ; though the petitioner did ask for the same. The petitioner has asserted in his writ petition that there is no case pending against him in any Court of law and it has been pleaded that under the administative instructions as well, a passport to an Indian citizen can only be refused if he is anti-Government, hot Communist, established smuggler, trying to jump the bail granted in a criminal case or being involved in a murder case is trying to run away. The petitioner, so proceeds the averment, does not fall in any one of the above catagories. Refusel to issue a passport by the respondents is thus described to be arbitrary, mala fide, illegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires the Constitution. Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution have been specifically relied upon in support of the fundamental right possessed by the petitioner to go abroad. In the writ petition, the following three decided cases have also been relied upon in support of the claim. K. G. Kazi v. C. V. Jethwani Francis Manjooran v. Government of India, and Dr. S. S Shadashve Rao v. Union of India * It is also added in the writ petition that the refusal to pass an order on the petitioner s application is mala fide and arbitrary and the delay is being caused simply to defeat the right of the petitioner to approach this Court.

( 3 ). In the affidavit in opposition sworn by Shri R. D. Chakravarty, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, it is affirmed that the petitioner was employed as a lower division clerk in the Ministry of Exteral Affairs during the years 1960-63 and certain cases were instituted against him by the Special Police Establishment, Delhi, undersection 380,411 and 420, Indian Penal Code, which resulted in his conviction under section 120-B read with section 420, Indian Penal Code. He was dismissed from Government service with effect from 28-5-1963. After dismissal from. Government service, the petitioner applied to the Regional Passport Officer for passport f