Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Guljari Lal Saini – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 11150 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Mr. Navjinder S. Sidhu, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate (Senior Panel Counsel) for the Union of India-Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226, and 227 - Passport Act, 1967 - Impoundment of passport - Petitioner challenged the impoundment on grounds of lack of a speaking order and opportunity for personal hearing. Respondents conceded that no speaking order was passed as mandated by Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India emphasized that the right to a passport is a fundamental right under Article 21, necessitating an opportunity for a personal hearing. Moreover, respondents are obligated to provide a reasoned order in cases of revocation of passports, except in emergent circumstances. (Paras 2-4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought to set aside the communication impounding his passport without a proper order or hearing. Respondents admitted the legal gap in the process followed for impounding.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the authorities to issue a speaking order and provide personal hearing to the petitioner within 6 weeks.
Issues: The core issue was whether the authorities had the obligation to provide a speaking order and a hearing before impounding a passport.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the right to travel, inclusive of passport rights, is part of the fundamental right under Article 21, mandating a fair process including a speaking order and opportunity for a hearing.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's right to a speaking order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. right to personal hearing in passport cases. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner through instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of communication dated 01.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) whereby passport of the petitioner has been impounded.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that respondent No.2 has impounded passport of the petitioner without passing speaking order as well as granting opportunity of personal hearing to put forth his stand.
3. Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that respondent No.2 has not passed a speaking order as required under Section 10 of PASSPORT ACT , 1967. He further submits that Passport Authorities would pass speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more than four decades back, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ; 1978 (1) SCC 248 recognized right to get passport and travel abroad as part of fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also directed the authorities to grant opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order. The right of opportunity of hearing is not only part of principles of natural justice but also part of fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Despite repeated orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and different High Courts, the respondent-authorities are mechanically withholding or revoking passports of the citizens of the country which deserves to be deprecated. The respondent-authorities are duty bound to pass a speaking/reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing before withholding/denying/revoking passport until and unless there are emergent and unavoidable circumstances.
In view of the statement of learned counsel for the respondents, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent-authorities to pass a speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The needful shall be done within 6 weeks from today.
