HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 03.03.2025 Pronounced on: 31.05.2025 Sajad Ahmad Khan …. Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Through:- Mr. Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate V/s Union of India and others …..Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI Ms. Mrinal, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.09.2021, issued by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption CBI Cases, Jammu, whereby, the application of the petitioner for release of his passport bearing No. N2274313 has been rejected. Further direction is sought to respondent No.

4 to issue fresh passport in his favour.

2. The petitioner is a senior citizen, an IAS officer, who retired on

31.03.2018. The passport of the petitioner bearing No. N2274313 was seized by the respondents on 12.10.2021. The respondents informed the petitioner that FIR No. RCCHG0512018S0006 was registered regarding issuance of arms licenses by Deputy Commissioners of UT of J&K. The respondents during investigation conducted a search of the petitioner's residence and vide seizure memo dated 12.10.2021 seized his original passport, two mobile phones and one original gift deed executed between the father-in-law of the petitioner and his wife about 25 years ago.

3. The petitioner was subsequently called to the CBI office at Chandigarh for investigation wherein the petitioner appeared and participated in the investigation and requested for release of passport and other articles.

4. The Regional Passport Officer, Srinagar sent an e-mail to the petitioner, informing him that his passport has been suspended due to Section 10(3)(c) i.e. security threat to India of the Passports Act and he was asked to contact Passport Officer, Srinagar, before 17.12.2021, failing which, action would be taken against him. This was replied by him on 27.01.2022, stating that he has contracted Covid-19 and was hospitalized and therefore could not attend to the e-mail. The petitioner also requested the respondents to inform him with the formalities for restoration of the passport. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was informed by the respondents that he could apply for a fresh case so he applied fresh also.

5. The respondent No. 4, vide communication dated 03.02.2023, informed the petitioner regarding impounding of the passport of the petitioner under Section 10(3)(c) i.e. security threat to India of the Passports Act. There was no show cause notice issued to the petitioner containing any allegations or circumstances which would indicate necessary to impound revoke the passport of the petitioner in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India or security of India. In fact, the only allegation against the petitioner is with regard to FIR No. RCCHG0512018S0006. The CBI had also recommended impounding of the Passport under Section 10(3)(e)

of the Passports Act.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a senior citizen and is in advanced stage of his life and could not follow up regarding release of his passport and intend to go for pilgrimage, therefore, the petitioner filed an application seeking release of the passport and other articles before the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI cases, who vide order dated 11.09.2024 has released the other articles seized vide seizure memo dated

12.10.2021, but held that the passport cannot be released.

7. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 11.09.2024 on the ground that impugned order is unsustainable in law. The learned trial court did not consider all the pleas raised in the application. The petitioner intends to travel abroad for religious pilgrimage and requires passport to enable him to travel abroad. The right to travel is a fundamental right as per the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. It is contended that the petitioner is not involved in any offence which is prejudicial to the national interest and security of