Petitioner Jayasoorya, a film artist, holds a passport, issued in October 2008 and valid till October 2018. On 30th November 2017, he applied to the Regional Passport Officer (the “Passport Officer”), the second respondent, for its renewal because, by then, the pages in the passport were exhausted. Jayasoorya asserts that he often goes abroad. Indeed, on his application, he did secure a new passport, valid till 29.11.2027.

2. In January 2018, Jayasoorya, however, received the Ext.P3 show cause notice from the Passport Officer. The notice informs Jayasoorya that while his securing the renewed passport, he suppressed a pending criminal case against him. That case is pending before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam. In turn, Jayasoorya submitted the Ext.P3(a) reply. He informed the Passport Officer that he had never been aware of the pending case, for he had no notice about it.

3. Despite Jayasoorya’s Ext.P3(a) reply, the Passport Officer served the Ext.P4 notice, identical to the previous notice. Jayasoorya replied through the Ext.P4(a). Again the Passport Officer, for the third time, issued the Ext.P5 show cause notice—again an almost-identical one. And Jayasoorya, once again, replied through the Ext.P5 (a).

4. Odd as it may sound, the Passport Officer, for the fourth time, issued the Ext.P6 show cause notice. Tired of replying, Jayasoorya has filed this writ petition.

Submissions:

Petitioner's:

5. Sri Millu Dandapani, the petitioner's counsel, strenuously contends that all the four notices are identical and none of last three notices referred to Jayasoorya’s reply. He asserts that the Passport Officer has acted mechanically and applied no mind.

6. To elaborate, Sri Dandapani has taken me through the salient aspects of the Passport Act. He also underlined Jayasoorya’s constitutional right to travel—a fundamental right, at that. In the end, to assert that the Passport Officer’s action falls foul of both the statutory and the constitutional mandate, he has relied on these decisions: (a) Anand Tewari v.Union of India, 2014 (1) JCC 186; (b) Rajbardhan Singh Rajpoot v. The Union of India, MANU/DE/4730/2013; (c) Manish Kumar Mittal v. Chief Passport Officer, 202 (2013) DLT 317; (d) P.T. Manoharanv. The Regional Passport Officer, MANU/TN/1712/2015; (e) Monika Karmakar v.Union of India, (2016)3C ALL T 68 (HC); (f) Kunjumon Thankappan v. Chief Passport Officer, 2012 (1) KHC 720; (g) Muhammed v. Union of India, Judgment dated 17.07.2018 in W.P.(C) No.21199/2018; and Union of Inida v. Charanjit Kaur, (1987) 1 SCC 471.

Respondents’:

7. Sri Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned counsel for the Central Government, on the other hand, has submitted that the Ext.P3 notice cannot be termed a statutory one. According to him, it is only an intimation to Jayasoorya. He has also contended that in response to the Ext.P3 notice; besides replying, the petitioner himself appeared before the Passport Officer and wanted the information about pending crime reverified. So the officer required the State Police to have the issue reverified.

8. But on re-verification, too, the Police, according to Sri Jaishankar, returned the same information. As a result, the Passport Officer issued the Ext.P4 notice, the statutory one. Sri Jaishankar submitted that to the Ext.P4 show cause notice, the petitioner has not replied. So the Passport Officer issued the Ext.P5 show cause notice and, later, followed it up with the Ext.P6 notice.

9. Sri Jaishankar, however, spared no effort to distinguish all the four notices. According to him, the first one is a mere intimation; the second one received no reply, and the third one alone should be treated as substantial notice. And on the fourth notice, he submits that it is a proposal to impound the passport. In that notice, the Passport Officer has specifically mentioned Section 10(3)(b), besides Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, he adds.

10. Drawing my attention to the second respondent’s statement, Sri Jaishankar al