1. Petitioner sought a fresh passport after his existing passport was impounded by authorities following allegations of holding multiple passports under different identities, leading to criminal investigations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67932
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
Santhosh Kumar Gopinadhan – Appellant
Versus
Regional Passport Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17908 OF 2026
Important Points
The impounding or revocation of a passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, does not constitute a permanent bar to applying for a fresh passport, as the grounds for refusal under Section 6(2) of the Act are exhaustive.
Subject
Administrative Law - Passports and Travel Documents
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Passports Act, 1967 - Sections 6(2), 10(3)(b) and 11 - Impounding and revocation of passport - Refusal of fresh passport - Exhaustive nature of grounds for refusal - Whether impounding an earlier passport constitutes a permanent bar to seeking a fresh one - The grounds specified under Section 6(2) for the refusal of a passport are exhaustive and do not include the prior impounding of a passport as a ground for refusal (Paras 10, 18).
(B) Fundamental Rights - Freedom of movement - A citizen's right to travel is a facet of fundamental rights and can be curtailed only through the procedure established by law (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
An applicant's passport was impounded by the authority under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, on the grounds that the individual held multiple passports with entirely different particulars obtained through impersonation. A criminal case was subsequently registered. When the applicant applied for a fresh passport, the authority kept the application on hold, asserting that the applicant had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11 against the impounding order and had suppressed material facts.
Findings of Court:
The application for a fresh passport cannot be kept on hold solely for the reason that the applicant chose not to prefer an appeal against the order of impounding. Furthermore, since the criminal investigation was still pending and no final report had been filed or cognizance taken by a competent court, the grounds for refusal under Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) of the Act could not be invoked (Para 17).
Issues: Whether the impounding or revocation of a passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, creates a perceptual bar on applying for a fresh passport.
Ratio Decidendi: Impounding refers to the legal custody of a document physically in existence. The proviso to Section 10(3)(b) does not expressly prohibit a person whose passport has been impounded or revoked from applying for a fresh passport. Since the grounds for refusal of a passport under Section 6(2) are exhaustive, and impounding is not listed therein, the revocation of a passport under Section 10(3)(b) does not, by itself, constitute a permanent disqualification from applying for a fresh passport (Para 18).
Result: Order set aside with a direction to the respondent to consider the application for issuance of a fresh passport in accordance with law.
(B) Fundamental Rights - Freedom of movement - A citizen's right to travel is a facet of fundamental rights and can be curtailed only through the procedure established by law (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
An applicant's passport was impounded by the authority under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, on the grounds that the individual held multiple passports with entirely different particulars obtained through impersonation. A criminal case was subsequently registered. When the applicant applied for a fresh passport, the authority kept the application on hold, asserting that the applicant had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11 against the impounding order and had suppressed material facts.
Findings of Court:
The application for a fresh passport cannot be kept on hold solely for the reason that the applicant chose not to prefer an appeal against the order of impounding. Furthermore, since the criminal investigation was still pending and no final report had been filed or cognizance taken by a competent court, the grounds for refusal under Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) of the Act could not be invoked (Para 17).
Issues: Whether the impounding or revocation of a passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, creates a perceptual bar on applying for a fresh passport.
Ratio Decidendi: Impounding refers to the legal custody of a document physically in existence. The proviso to Section 10(3)(b) does not expressly prohibit a person whose passport has been impounded or revoked from applying for a fresh passport. Since the grounds for refusal of a passport under Section 6(2) are exhaustive, and impounding is not listed therein, the revocation of a passport under Section 10(3)(b) does not, by itself, constitute a permanent disqualification from applying for a fresh passport (Para 18).
Result: Order set aside with a direction to the respondent to consider the application for issuance of a fresh passport in accordance with law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manu Ramachandran, M. Kiranlal, R. Rajesh (Varkala), Sameer M Nair, Sailakshmi Menon, Binitha Maria Thomas, Akza Susan Bency, Kezil Thottukadavil Cherian
For the Respondents: P. Sreekumar, Bharat Vijay
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manu Ramachandran, M. Kiranlal, R. Rajesh (Varkala), Sameer M Nair, Sailakshmi Menon, Binitha Maria Thomas, Akza Susan Bency, Kezil Thottukadavil Cherian
For the Respondents: P. Sreekumar, Bharat Vijay
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued that impounding does not bar fresh applications and statutory grounds for refusal are exhaustive; authorities contended the applicant must first exhaust appellate remedies against the impounding. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 )
3. The court found that impounding a passport does not create a permanent legal barrier to applying for a new passport, nor does it require exhaustion of appellate remedies beforehand. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. The impounding or revocation of a passport under the Passports Act does not constitute a perpetual disqualification from applying for a fresh passport, subject to statutory inquiry. (Para 18 )
5. The court set aside the communication rejecting the application and directed the authority to consider the fresh passport application on its merits according to law. (Para 18 )
6. Does the impounding of a passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act operate as a permanent bar to applying for a fresh passport?
No. The impounding or revocation of a passport does not, by itself, create a permanent disqualification from applying for a fresh passport. The passport authority is obligated to consider such applications in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act and the rules made thereunder. (Para 18 )
7. Can the passport authority refuse to consider a fresh passport application because the applicant has not exhausted the appellate remedy under Section 11 of the Passports Act?
No. The passport authority cannot keep an application for a fresh passport on hold solely because the applicant chose not to prefer an internal appeal against the previous order of impounding. (Para 16 )
8. Does the pendency of a criminal investigation under the Passports Act permit the unconditional refusal of a fresh passport application?
Unless a final report has been filed or cognizance has been taken by a competent criminal court, the specific grounds for refusal relating to pending criminal proceedings under the Act cannot be invoked to arbitrarily reject a passport application. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was the holder of an Indian passport bearing No. U5095770 dated 25.02.2020 valid up to 24.02.2030 in lieu of passport No. E4587899 dated 15.07.2003 issued from Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram in lieu of passport No. K790492 dated 09.03.1992 issued from Passport Office, Cochin. In all the above passports, his name is mentioned as Santhosh Kumar Gopinadhan, S/o Gopinadhan with date of birth as 05.05.1969.
2. The petitioner was working in Dubai till 04.02.2020 and during COVID-19 pandemic, he lost his job and he came back and has been residing in India for more than five years since. The petitioner was offered with a job in a Trucking Company operating throughout Europe and in connection with the same, he applied for issuance of a Police Clearance Certificate before the 1st respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. While processing the application for Police Clearance Certificate, it came to the notice of the 1st respondent that the petitioner had obtained another passport bearing No. N5195625 dated 28.02.2016 issued from Embassy of India, Kuwait in lieu of passport No. F9267650 dated 09.12.2006 issued from Embassy of India, Kuwait in continuation of passport No. E140153 dated 05.06.2002 issued from Regional Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of Liyon Edwara, S/o Edwara with date of birth as 04.05.1965. The 1st respondent, therefore, initiated action to impound the petitioner’s passport No. U5095770 and directed surrender of the same. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered the passport and Ext. P1 is the surrender certificate issued by the 1st respondent.
4. Thereafter, by Ext.P2 letter dated 03.07.2025, the petitioner was intimated that his passport No. U5095770 dated 25.02.2020 is impounded under Section 10(3) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967 since he is holding double passport with entirely different particulars obtained by impersonation and closed the file relating to Police Clearance Certificate. The petitioner was also informed that he has a right of appeal against the impounding of the passport under Section 11 of the Passports Act.
5. On the basis of information given by the 1st respondent, Ext.P3 FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 12(1) (b) of the Passport Act at Kundara Police Station, as crime No.274/2026.
6. Since the job offer referred to above was still in force, the petitioner on 11.03.2026 applied for issuance of a fresh passport, before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued Ext. P5 communication stating that an order for impounding passport had already been issued to the petitioner, along with a provision for appeal, on the ground that he held two passports containing different particulars. He was advised to act in accordance with the said order.
7. According to the petitioner, Ext. P5 communication directing him to pursue his remedies pursuant to the impounding of his earlier passport without considering his application for issuance of a fresh passport with details and records stipulated by the Passports Act and Rules is erroneous in law. The petitioner contends that an application for issuance of passport can only be denied for the reasons provided in Section 6(2) of the Passports Act. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash Ext. P5 and to declare that his application for issuance of fresh passport cannot be denied for any reasons other than mentioned in Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, and for direction to the 1st respondent to consider his application for issuance of fresh passport evident from Ext. P4, within a time limit.
8. A statement dated 04.06.2026 was filed by the Central Government Counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent, followed by a counter affidavit of the 1st respondent on similar lines. It is stated therein that, on 11.03.2026, the petitioner applied for issuance of a fresh passport without availing himself of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act again
