The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the right to travel abroad as an important basic human right, supported by key legal provisions from the Passports Act, 1967.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 87 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 659 of 2021 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 19.01.2022 preferred by the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate for the purpose of renewal of the petitioner's passport, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur.

3. The informant namely Suraj Kumar, Junior Engineer, Swarnarekha Project cum Deputation Magistrate, Bistupur, Jamshedpur got the information that the Spa in the Alcor Hotel was open and some arrangement for parties were being made during prohibitory lock down period of COVID-19 and on that ground the FIR was lodged under Sections 188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet has been submitted in that case and cognizance has been taken and the petitioner is facing trial. He further submits that for renewal of passport, the petitioner had earlier preferred W.P. (C) No. 2574 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.12.2021 with direction to file fresh representation before the authority concerned for taking decision on the prayer of renewal of passport. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed representation which was disposed of by the Passport Officer, Ranchi and directed the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a petition on 19.01.2022 which was considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same has been rejected. He also submits that the case of the petitioner comes under Sub-section 2(f) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. He further submits that the petitioner was required to go abroad with regard to his business and for that renewal was required to be done, which has been refused. He also submits that refusal to renew a Passport infringes the petitioner's Right to Equality and the Right to Personal Liberty as enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. He relied upon paragraph 5 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 SCC Online SC 2048.

5. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:

“5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. [See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248]. In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent vs. Dulles, (1958) 357 US 116 which are as follows:

“Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.”

6. By way of referring Annexure-B of the counter affidavit filed by the State, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has verified and given a report that there is no difficulty in renewing the passport and in spite of that the learned court below has not issued No Objection Certificate. He further submits that the learned court below has refused to issue No Objection Certificate on two grounds; firstly that the petitioner