Fundamental Right to Travel Abroad, Authority Can't Cite Ongoing Dispute Over Applicant's Address To Deny Passport: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently directed the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai to renew the passports of a woman and her two sons, which were earlier rejected by the Passport Authority due to objections raised by the woman's brother-in-law over the address mentioned by them in their passport applications.Delivering the judgement, Justices AS Chandurkar and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated, "A...
The Bombay High Court recently directed the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai to renew the passports of a woman and her two sons, which were earlier rejected by the Passport Authority due to objections raised by the woman's brother-in-law over the address mentioned by them in their passport applications.
Delivering the judgement, Justices AS Chandurkar and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated, "A person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport."
The court however clarified the Petitioners' address in the passport would not by itself confer on them any right in respect of the said property so as to prejudice the brother-in-law in any way.
Nonetheless, the court observed that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, no person can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure established by law as laid down in the Passports Act, 1967.
"Since the Petitioners have filed the present Petition to enforce the fundamental right to travel abroad, which is guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and have challenged the said Orders refusing renewal of passport to them as being without jurisdiction, the present Petition clearly falls within the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy,' it observed.
The Passport Authority had refused to renew the passports of Rajinder Kaur and her two sons on the ground that there was an objection raised by the woman's brother-in-law Gurvinder Chanan Singh Layal over the address mentioned by them in their passport applications.
Layal had contended that the address belonged to a room standing in his name and there was an ongoing property dispute regarding the same. However, the court clarified that the right to the property can be protected by making it clear that mention of the address in the passports will not confer any title rights to the appellants.
The court directed, the Respondent No.2 to issue passports to the Petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act and the Passports Rules, without going into the merits of the objection as raised by Respondent No.3.
The court held that the ground cited by the Passport Authority for refusal is "arbitrary and without jurisdiction." It also observed that the Passports Act does not contain any provision that enables refusal on the ground mentioned.
“Needless to state that indication of the Petitioners' address in the passport would not, by itself, confer on them any right in respect of the said property mentioned therein, and such inclusion would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Respondent No.3 in other pending proceedings,” the bench added.
Appearance – Adv Bharti Sharma for the Petitioners.
Y. R. Mishra a/w. D. A. Dube for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2-UOI.
Adv Aniesh Jadhav a/w. Mr. Rushikesh Kekane for Respondent Brother in law.
Case No- WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2022