The central legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal of a passport must be based on a judicious application of mind and consideration of the facts and circumstances, in accordance with the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967.

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.:-

1. From the perusal of the records it emerges that respondent No. 3 had issued Passport No. A-8957658 on 24.07.2002 in favour of the petitioner valid upto 23.07.2003, has been renewed, but finally expired in the month of December 2006. In the foreign country i.e. Russia, petitioner has undergone MBBS course, which position is supported by the certificate No. 256 dated 26.08.1998 issued by the 'Kazakhstan SEMEY State Medical University'. Furthermore, petitioner appears to have contracted marriage there with one Marina Lupareva; two children are born out of the said wedlock, which is clear from the affidavit and photographs placed on record.

2. On the expiry of the validity of the Passport in the month of December 2006, petitioner had applied for its renewal vide key No. B-001088 under 'Tatkal' category; in view of no response one more application was filed in the year 2011 vide key No. M-000486, again without response, which prompted him to file OWP No. 912/2013; vide order dated 11.09.2013, respondent No. 2 therein was directed to send the copy of the report to respondent No. 3 within one week, thereafter respondent No. 3 was to take decision under the Passport Act, 1967.

3. In compliance of the said direction respondent No. 2 had forwarded the report to respondent No. 3 to the effect that the petitioner had crossed over the line of control to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in the year 1989 for obtaining arms training; on return was arrested in the year 1991 and detained under the provisions of the Public Safety Act, 1978. On such basis grant of Passport has not been recommended.

4. The said petition (OWP No. 912/2013) came up again for consideration before the court on 01.10.2013 but since respondent No. 3 had taken decision not to grant Passport, the writ petition was rendered in fructuous so dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy under law,

5. The order of refusal dated 24.09.2013 issued by respondent No. 3 under No. POSK/144R/B00108806-M00048608 is unsustainable for the reasons to follow:-

(a) Respondent No. 3 has not applied his mind as was required because on the basis of the police verification report refusal order could not be automatic, atleast Passport Officer was required to consider that the alleged activities pertained to the period 1989 to 1991;

(b) Petitioner had been granted Passport in the year 2002; had been in Russia for a quite long time where he has now family.

(c) Nothing had been brought on record to show that the petitioner in any manner remained connected with any unlawful activities from the year 1991 or during the long period he remained in Russia;

(d) Apprehension that the petitioner, if allowed to go abroad, may indulge in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of the Country or the State, is totally misplaced.

(e) Refusal of grant of Passport is in effect to push the petitioner to an uncertain situation, resultant effect of which is to subject his family i.e. wife and two children who are residing in Russia, to disadvantageous position.

6. Respondent No. 3 (Passport Officer, Srinagar) in the reply has stated that the order of refusal is passed consciously. In the light of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act 1967, the case of the petitioner was examined. He was personally involved in the militancy related activities, therefore there is a bonafide belief that his presence on foreign soil may not be in the interest of the Union of India.

Section-6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides grounds for refusal of Passport, travel document etc. Section 6(2)(b) provides that the Passport Officer shall refuse grant of Passport or travel document for visiting any foreign Country on various grounds which include likelihood of the applicant to get engaged outside India in the activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of the Country.

7. The star question which arises for consideration is as to whether in view of the position of the petitioner h