Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI
Imran Khan S/o Afsar Khan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through the Principal Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents i.e. Embassy of India, Kuwait may kindly be directed to release the passport of the petitioner, so that the petitioner can apply for NOC from the concerned criminal court.
By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities i.e. Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur or the Embassy of India, Kuwait may kindly be directed to renew the passport of the petitioner.
Any other order which the Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper and just in the interest of justice.”
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
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 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 court held that impounding a passport without a hearing violates natural justice, and the pendency of matrimonial disputes cannot justify such action.
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.
The right to renew a passport and travel abroad is protected under Article 21, requiring judicial discretion to be applied, ensuring it is not curtailed arbitrarily while considering ongoing criminal....
The court established that the impounding of a passport requires adherence to principles of natural justice and that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically justify such action.
The issuance of a passport during the pendency of a criminal case is at the discretion of the court and depends on various factors such as the nature of the alleged offense and the stage of the trial....
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
