Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Hardik Shah v. Union of India & Another
Writ Petition No. 5692 of 2020 (Indore); Decided on 7.12.2021
(1) Natural Justice -- impounding of passport -- effective and meaningful hearing can take place only after documents and complaint are furnished to petitioner -- instead of hearing petitioner and supplying documents, respondent No.2 impounded passport - no post-decisional hearing also provided -- impugned action of impounding/cancelling passport set aside. (1978) 1 SCC 248 followed. [Paras 14 and 16]
(2) Practice -- pleadings -- not denied -- effect -- specific pleadings of petition not denied by respondents while filing reply -- averments can be treated to be admitted. 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 46 followed. [Paras 14 and 15]
(3) Passports Act, 1967 -- S. 10 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 498A -- impounding of passport - offence u/s. 498A of IPC -- impounding of passport or issuing of red corner notice should not be routine -- can be done if Investigating Officer is satisfied that arrest is mandatory and accused is absconding in order to disturb routine legal proceedings -- not case of respondents that pursuant to information given by investigating authority, passport was impounded so that petitioner cannot abscond from legal proceedings -- mere pendency of criminal case cannot be ground to initiate action -- application of mind needed regarding nature of criminal case. ILR 2018 MP 677, 2013 SCC Online Del. 3007, Writ Petition No. 59959 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 12143 of 2015 and Writ Petition No. 27307 of 2019 relied on. [Paras 17 and 18]
(4) Passports Act, 1967 -- S. 9 -- Passports Rules, 1980 -- R.12 -- renewal of passport during pendency of criminal case -- Gazette Notification GSR 570 (E) dated 25.8.1993 -- not impediment for renewing passport for 10 years -- Government duty bound to follow principles and directions laid down in judgments and renew passports for period of tenyears.Writ Petition (Lodging) No.699 of 2020 relied on. [Para 20]
(5) Passports Act, 1967 -- S. 10 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 21- impounding of passport -- petitioner not afforded pre- or post-decisional hearing before impounding -- impugned action and order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny -- pendency of matrimonial cases alone cannot beground to decline renewal of passport -- Gazette notification cannot be ground for not renewing passport for period of ten years or for impounding orrestricting it for period of one year only -- absence of any report of Investigating Officer to contrary -- in absence of any other legal impediment, respondents not justifiedin impounding passport -- action of respondent scertainly affects right of livelihood of travel blogger whotravels abroad and earns his livelihood therefrom -- impugned action of impounding/cancelling passport set aside -- respondents directed to issue regular passport for period of 10 years to petitioner. (2018) 10 SCC 472, Writ Petition No. 2390 of 2015, (2008) 3 SCC 674, Writ Petition No. 361 of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 12784 of 2015 referred to. [Paras 21 and 22]
¼1½ uSlfxZd U;k; & ikliksVZ ifjc) fd;k tkuk & ;kph dks nLrkost vkSj f'kdk;r Ánku djus ds i'pkr~ gh ÁHkkoh vkSj lkFkZd lquokbZ gks ldrh gS & ;kph dks lquus vkSj nLrkost Ánk; djus ds ctk; izR;FkhZ Øekad 2 us ikliksVZ ifjc) fd;k & fofu'p;ksijkar lquokbZ Hkh ugha dh & ikliksVZ ifjc)@jn~n djus dh vkf{kIr dkjZokbZ vikLrA ¼1978½ 1 ,l lh lh 248 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 16½
¼2½ ÁFkk & vfHkopu & ÁR;k[;ku ugha & ÁHkko & mRrj ÁLrqr djrs le; ÁR;FkhZx.k }kjk ;kfpdk ds fofufnZ"V vfHkopuksa dk ÁR;k[;ku ugha fd;k x;k & ÁdFku LohÑr ekus tk ldrs gSaA 1993 lIyhŒ ¼4½ ,l lh lh 46 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 16½
¼3½ ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e] 1967 & /kkjk 10 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 498d & ikliksVZ ifjc) fd;k tkuk & naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu vijk/k & ikliksVZ ifjc) djuk vFkok jsM dkWuZj uksfVl tkjh djuk uSfefRrd ugha gksuk pkfg, & rc fd;k tk ldrk gS tc vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dk lek/kku gks tk, fd fxjrkjh vko';d gS rFkk vfHk;qDr uSfefRrd fof/kd dk;Zokgh fo{kqC/k djus ds fy, Qjkj gqvk gS & ÁR;FkhZx.k dk i{kdFku ugha fd vUos"k.k Ákf/kdkjh }kjk nh xbZ tkudkjh ds vuqlj.k esa ikliksVZ ifjc) fd;k x;k rkfd ;kph fof/kd dk;Zokgh ls iyk;u ugha dj lds & nakfMd ekeys dk yacu ek=] dkjZokbZ vkjaHk djus ds fy, vk/kkj ugha gks ldrk & nkafMd ekeys ds ÁÑfr ds ckjs esa euksfu;ksx vko';dA vkb ,y vkj 2018 ,e ih 677] 2013 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu fnYyh 3007] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 59959 lu~ 2016] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 12143 lu~ 2015 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 27307 lu~ 2019 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18½
¼4½ ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e] 1967 & /kkjk 9 & ikliksVZ fu;e] 1980 & fuŒ 12 & nkafMd ekeys ds yacu ds nkSjku ikliksVZ dk uohdj.k & jkti= vfèklwpuk lkŒdkŒ fuŒ 570 ¼M+½ fnukad 25-8-1993 & ikliksVZ 10 o"kZ ds fy, uohÑr djus esa ck/kk ugha & fu.kZ;ksa ds vf/kdfFkr fl)karksa vkSj funs'kksa dk vuqlj.k djus vkSj nl o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ikliksVZ uohÑr djus dks 'kklu drZO;kc)A fjV fiVh'ku ¼ykWftax½ Øekad 699 lu~ 2020 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 20½
¼5½ ikliksVZ vf/kfu;e] 1967 & /kkjk 10 & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 21 & ikliksVZ ifjc) fd;k tkuk & ifjc) djus ds iwoZ ;kph dh fofu'p;iwoZ vFkok fofu'p;ksijkar lquokbZ ugha dh xbZ & vkf{kIr dkjZokbZ vkSj vksn'k U;kf;d laoh{kk esa fLFkj ugha jg ldrs & nkEiR; ekeyksa dk yacu ek=] ikliksVZ ds uohdj.k ls bUdkj dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrk & ikliksVZ nl o"kZ dh vofèk ds fy, uohÑr ugha djus vFkok ifjc) djus ;k dsoy ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, lhfer djus ds fy, jkti= vf/klwpuk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrh & vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds rRÁfrdwy Áfrosnu dh vfo|ekurk & vU; fdlh fofèkd ck/kk ds vHkko esa] ÁR;FkhZx.k }kjk ikliksVZ ifjc) fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha & ÁR;FkhZx.k dh dkjZokbZ ls fuf'pr gh ;k=k CykWxj dk] tks fons'k ;k=k djrk gS vkSj mlls viuk thfodksiktZu djrk gS] thfodksiktZu dk vf/kdkj ÁHkkfor gksrk gS & ikliksVZ ifjc)@jn~n djus dh vkf{kIr dkjZokbZ vikLr & ;kph dks 10 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, fu;fer ikliksVZ tkjh djus ds fy, ÁR;FkhZx.k funsf'krA ¼2018½ 10 ,l lh lh 472] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 2390 lu~ 2015 ¼2008½ 3 ,l lh lh 674] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 361 lu~ 2014 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 12784 lu~ 2015 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21 ,oa 22½
ORDER
1. The petitioner, a travel blogger and consultant has visited this Court for the second time against the action of Regional Passport Authority, Bhopal in not issuing a regular passport for a period of ten years and on the contrary impounding his passport in utter violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Draped in brevity, the case of the petitioner is that being a travel blogger by profession, the petitioner is required to travel around the globe. The passport was initially issued to the petitioner on 5.9.1997. The said passport was renewed for a period of ten years on 2.6.2014 and a new passport valid till 1.6.2024 was issued.
3. There was a matrimonial discord of petitioner with his wife who allegedly left matrimonial house on 12.9.2016. The petitioner’s wife took away the old passport of the petitioner with her. Petitioner filed the police complain regarding said action of his wife on 10.10.2016. Petitioner’s wife also filed an F.I.R. in Crime No.729/2016 against the petitioner and his family members on 03.11.2016 alleging demand of dowry etc. The petitioner filed a petition for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is still sub judice. The petitioner got bail in the said crime number on 26.4.2017. No condition was imposed in the bail order restricting the petitioner to travel abroad.
4. In turn, on 31.7.2017, the petitioner made an application for re-issuance of passport because his earlier passport was taken away by his wife. The petitioner also filed a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bearing No.8168/2019 before Allahabad High Court. On 8.3.2019, the High Court protected the petitioner, referred the matter to mediation and directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
5. Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s wife sent an email to the Passport Authority alleging that petitioner was not attending criminal proceedings, and therefore, action may be taken under section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967. Certain documents were sent to the Passport Authority through email by the wife of the petitioner. The Passport Authority directed the wife to remain present for verification of documents annexed with the complain. She did not turn up and all her complain sent through email were entertained and treated as gospel truth.
6. A show-casue notice under section 10(3)(h) of the said Act was issued to petitioner on 7.6.2019 as to why his passport should not be impounded. Pausing here for a moment, Shri Maheshwari urged that notice was confined for impounding of passport and not for its revocation. The petitioner while submitting a preliminary reply on 27.6.2019 requested the authority to supply copy of complain and supporting documents. When petitioner’s said request went in vain, he filed W.P. No.18354/2019 before this Court seeking supply of said documents and for other reliefs. Shri Maheshwari submits that said writ petition was disposed of on 4.9.2019 (Annexure-P/9) and in view of this order, respondent No.2 was required to provide necessary document to the petitioner and to conclude the hearing expeditiously.
7. In turn, Shri Maheshwari submits that the petitioner approached respondent No.2 on 9.9.2019 and prayed for compliance of the order of this Court. The passport authority directed the petitioner to surrender the passport failing which, the passport will be cancelled. The passport was impounded without affording any hearing or opportunity. The document of Passport Office, Bhopal (page – 62) is relied upon to show that passport was in fact impounded on 9.9.2019. Para – 5.13 of the petition was relied upon to contend that the specific allegations / averments made in this regard in the petition have not been denied. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner.
8. Furthermore, it is submitted that on 9.9.2019 after impounding the passport, the complain and supporting do
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 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 court held that impounding a passport without a hearing violates natural justice, and the pendency of matrimonial disputes cannot justify such action.
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 main legal point established is that the pendency of criminal cases should not lead to denial of passport facilities, as per the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980, and suppo....
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.
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
