Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Darshan Gurudas Vernekar (first petitioner) and his father Gurudas Vishnu Vernekar (second petitioner), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a letter dated 08.06.2023 issued by the Regional Passport Officer through the Vice Consul (Passport), Consulate General of India, Chicago, which refused to re-issue the passport of the first petitioner. The first petitioner, an engineer working in the USA, had applied for re-issuance of his passport after learning that his wife had lodged a criminal complaint against him at Hubli-Dharwad City Women Police Station, resulting in Crime No.90/2022 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 420, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He needed the passport to appear before the criminal court in India. The passport authority refused re-issuance citing the pending criminal case. The court examined the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 5(2) which requires the authority to give an opportunity of hearing before refusing to issue or re-issue a passport. The court found that no show cause notice was issued to the first petitioner before the refusal. The court also noted that the authority had not invoked Section 10(3) of the Act for impounding the passport. The court held that the refusal without following principles of natural justice was unsustainable. The court quashed the impugned letter and directed the respondents to re-issue the passport to the first petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Passport Law - Re-issuance of Passport - Show Cause Notice - Section 5(2) of Passports Act, 1967 - The passport authority refused to re-issue passport to the first petitioner on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. The court held that the authority must issue a show cause notice and afford an opportunity of hearing before refusing re-issuance, as per Section 5(2) of the Passports Act, 1967. The impugned letter was quashed and the authority was directed to re-issue the passport within four weeks. (Paras 1-6) B) Passport Law - Impounding of Passport - Section 10(3) of Passports Act, 1967 - The court noted that the passport authority had not invoked Section 10(3) of the Act, which deals with impounding of passports. The refusal to re-issue was not based on any order of impounding. The court held that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically justify refusal of passport re-issuance without following due process. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the passport authority can refuse to re-issue a passport on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings without issuing a show cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure-D) is quashed. The respondents are directed to re-issue the passport to the first petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Passport re-issuance
- Show cause notice
- Section 5(2) Passports Act 1967
- Section 10(3) Passports Act 1967
- Impounding of passport
- Right to travel
- Criminal proceedings pending
