IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Abhijeet Beniwal S/o Shankarlal - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5383/2025
Decided on : 21-03-2025
(A) Passport Act, 1967 - Section 10 - Principles of natural justice - Writ petition for issuance of a regular passport for 10 years - The petitioner, a travel blogger, challenged the impounding of his passport without a hearing, citing violation of natural justice principles. The court emphasized that the pendency of matrimonial disputes cannot justify passport impounding. The court referenced prior judgments establishing that passports should be renewed for a minimum of 10 years unless specific legal impediments exist. (Paras 1, 9, 21)
(B) Natural Justice - The court reiterated that fair opportunity of being heard must be provided before impounding a passport, and no post-decisional hearing was afforded to the petitioner. (Paras 16, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a regular passport after his previous one was impounded amid matrimonial disputes. The court found that the impounding lacked justification and violated natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The impugned action of impounding the passport was set aside, and the respondents were directed to issue a regular passport for 10 years.
Issues: The main issues included whether the impounding of the passport was justified and if the petitioner was afforded a fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the impounding of the passport without a hearing was unlawful, and the pendency of matrimonial cases cannot be a basis for denying passport issuance.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
Order :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and may kindly issue direction to respondent authority to issue a regular passport for a period of 10 years to the petitioner.
Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 07.12.2021, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Hardik Shah Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition No.5692 of 2020 (Indore).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent is in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The order dated 07.12.2021 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“1. The petitioner, a travel blogger and consultant has visited this Court for the second time against the action of Regional Passport Authority, Bhopal in not issuing a regular passport for a period of ten years and on the contrary impounding his passport in utter violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Draped in brevity, the case of the petitioner is that being a travel blogger by profession, the petitioner is required to travel around the globe. The passport was initially issued to the petitioner on 05.09.1997. The said passport was renewed for a period of ten years on 02.06.2014 and a new passport valid till 01.06.2024 was issued.
3. There was a matrimonial discord of petitioner with his wife who allegedly left matrimonial house on 12.09.2016. The petitioner's wife took away the old passport of the petitioner with her. Petitioner filed the police complain regarding said action of his wife on 10.10.2016. Petitioner's wife also filed an F.I.R. in Crime No.729/2016 against the petitioner and his family members on 03.11.2016 alleging demand of dowry etc. The petitioner filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is still sub judice. The petitioner got bail in the said crime number on 26.04.2017. No condition was imposed in the bail order restricting the petitioner to travel abroad.
4. In turn, on 31.07.2017, the petitioner made an application for re-issuance of passport because his earlier passport was taken away by his wife. The petitioner also filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bearing No.8168/2019 before Allahabad High Court. On 08.03.2019, the High Court protected the petitioner, referred the matter to mediation and directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
5. Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's wife sent an email to the Passport Authority alleging that petitioner was not attending criminal proceedings, and therefore, action may be taken under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967. Certain documents were sent to the Passport Authority through email by the wife of the petitioner. The Passport Authority directed the wife to remain present for verification of documents annexed with the complain. She did not turn up and all her complain sent through email were entertained and treated as gospel truth.
6. A show-casue notice under Section 10(3)(h) of the said Act was issued to petitioner on 07.06.2019 as to why his passport should not be impounded. Pausing here for a moment, Shri Maheshwari urged that notice was confined for impounding of passport and not for its revocation. The petitioner while submitting a preliminary reply on 27.06.2019 requested the authority to supply copy of complain and supporting documents. When petitioner's said request went in vain, he filed W.P. No.18354/2019 before this Court seeking supply of said documents and for other reliefs. Shri Maheshwari submits that said writ petition was disposed of on 04.09.2019 (Annexure-P/9) and
The court held that impounding a passport without a hearing violates natural justice, and the pendency of matrimonial disputes cannot justify such action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fair opportunity of being heard must be given following the order impounding the passport to satisfy the mandate of natural justice. Additiona....
The denial of passport renewal based solely on pending cases without affording a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice and the right to livelihood under Article 21.
The pendency of a criminal case does not justify the refusal of passport services, as individuals retain their right to travel freely, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.