1. Petitioner a citizen of India and state subject of State of Jammu and Kashmir, applied for issuance of Passport to respondent no. 2, which authority after applying its mind in accordance with the provisions of Passport Act, 1967, issued passport in favour of the petitioner bearing No: E 8449130. Passport was issued on 20th July, 2004 and its date of expiry was recorded as 19th July, 2014. However before the expiry period of the passport, the respondent no. 2 impounded the same, which order as it is claimed was never served on the petitioner.

2. The petitioners' mother and brother have already been issued passports after the same was issued in favour of the petitioner. This fact is not denied by the respondents. The passports of mother and brother of the petitioner have not been impounded, which fact also has not been disputed by the respondents. The respon#31;dent no. 2 in his objections has stated that verification report which was sent by the State Police Authorities to respondent no. 2 and which became basis for issuance of passport was subsequently withdrawn and it is for this reason passport of the petitioner has been impounded.

3. Respondents 3 to 6 in their verification report have stated that one of the brother of the petitioner was allegedly involved in militancy. In objections they have not alleged anything adverse against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before issuing order of impounding the passport of the petitioner, no notice was issued to him. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has passed post graduation and is married person having children and is resident of District Rajouri. Learned counsel further submitted that the family of the petitioner got separated in the wake of partition of the country. Learned counsel further submitted that the passport has been illegally impounded by respondent no. 2. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to the judgment of this court reported in 2010 (2) SLJ 751.

5. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 in his fairness submitted that on recalling of police verification report, which had become basis for issuance of passport, orders for impounding the passport could have not been issued. Learned counsel submitted that the matter be referred to Passport Officer, so as to enable him to take fresh decision in accordance with the provisions of Passport Act, 1967.

6. The right to travel abroad inheres in the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. This right can be curtailed by the Passport Officer on the basis of the available material and after entering into satisfaction that either passport could not be issued or if already issued, same is to be impounded. The Passport officer in all situations has to take the decision strictly in accordance with the provisions of Passport Act, 1967, being a creature of the said statute. Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967, provides that Passport Officer can order for im#31;pounding of Passport. Nothing is brought on record to show or suggest that any of the eventualities mentioned in section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967, were existing before issuing order for impounding the Passport of the petitioner. The allegation that brother of the petitioner was allegedly involved in the militant activity may not in all circumstances become ground either for denying the issuance of Passport or impounding of same after its issuance. Furthermore, mere withdrawing of recom#31;mendation of State Police Authorities will not automatically result in issuance of orders of impounding of Passport. The Passport Officer in all cases has to apply its mind on the material available with him and thereafter to take decision in accor#31;dance with provisions of Passport Act, 1967.

7. In this case the Passport Officer has to re-consider the issue in light of observation made in this order and law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC page 597 (Maneka

Click Here to Read the rest of this document