Natural justice principles must be upheld in administrative decisions impacting individual rights.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P10 order whereby his request for release of the passport, which was seized for travelling to Yemen, has been rejected by the 2^nd respondent.

2. The petitioner is the holder of an Indian Passport.

He travelled to Yemen on 03.12.2021 and returned to India on 20.05.2022 via Muscat. On arrival at Kannur International Airport, he was informed that his travel contravened the Government Notification dated 26.09.2017 issued under Section 19 (d) of the Passports Act, 1967 , restricting travel to Yemen. Accordingly, the passport of the petitioner was seized as per Ext.P3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 3^rd respondent seeking release of passport explaining that he had travelled for his educational purpose, which was bona fide. However, by Ext.P5, the 3^rd respondent refused to release the passport on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for ex post facto approval.

3. The petitioner filed W.P(C)No.44956 of 2025 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to release the passport. This Court, by Ext.P8 judgment dated 02.02.2026, directed the petitioner to prefer a representation before the 2^nd respondent within ten days and the 2^nd respondent was directed to consider the same, with notice to the petitioner and also in the light of the observations made in the judgment dated 22.08.2022 in W.P(C)No.19210 of 2022 and connected cases. Pursuant to Ext.P8, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 request for release of the passport which was rejected by Ext.P10 order.

4. The petitioner states that he had travelled to Yemen without being aware of the travel restrictions and that the visit was for educational purpose. The petitioner refers to Ext.P7, which is the answer given to a question in the Lok Sabha regarding the seizure and release of passports of about 3091 persons who travelled to Yemen. The petitioner also refers to paragraph No.5 of the statement filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent in W.P(C)No.44956 of 2025, which reads as follows :

“5. The Regional Passport Office, Kozhikode upon verification of the passport pages and the explanation submitted, found the petitioner’s claims to be genuine. There was only a single visit to Yemen. The petitioner had approached the Regional Passport Office, Kozhikode multiple times requesting the release of his passport, citing livelihood concerns and pleading for leniency on the basis that he had not knowingly violated the travel ban.”

5. I find that Ext.P10 is a non-speaking order and has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though this Court directed the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in the judgment dated 22.08.2022 in W.P(C)No.19210 of 2022 and connected cases, there is absolutely no reference thereto in Ext.P10 order. The 2^nd respondent has not considered the averments of the petitioner in Ext.P9 and has not examined whether the travel was inevitable and bona fide. Accordingly, Ext.P10 order is set aside and there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to pass fresh orders, after due consideration of the averments of the petitioner in Ext.P9 and the directions in Ext.P8 judgment and with due notice and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.