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. Additionally, the pendency of criminal/matrimonial cases alone cannot be a ground to decline passport renewal.

ORDER : – 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 complaint 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 3-11-2016 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 complaint. She did not turn up and all her complaints sent through email were entertained and treated as gospel truth.

6. A show-cause 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 complaint 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 complaint and suppor