Fundamental Right to Travel Abroad:Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court upheld "Right to Travel Abroad " :
Gist of the case :
Petitioner lost pass port ,the application for new pass port was rejected on the ground that petitioner was negligent in handling important document,the petitioner said " his antecedents are good and he traveled abroad many times".
Held : Delhi H.C ordered new pass port to be issued afresh to petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay Rs 50,000 as [cost]fine for negligent handling of pass port,the amount to be deposited in Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, New Delhi, within a period of four weeks..
Full Text of Judgment :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 5141/2013 &
CM APPL. 11557/2013
SH. AVIKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Suman Kapoor, Advocate with petitioner in
person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
Date of Decision : 07th July, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
MANMOHAN
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1.Despite a pass over, none has appeared for the respondents.
Consequently, this Court has no other option, but to proceed
ahead with the matter.
2. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ petition
has been filed seeking re-issuance of Passport in favour of the petitioner or
in the alternative issuance of fresh Passport in favour of the petitioner.
3. Admittedly, petitioner has lost his Passport thrice and
the fourth time it has been returned in a damaged condition.
4. Respondents in their counter affidavit have taken the
stand that petitioner has failed to keep a valuable Government document safely.
They W.P.(C) 5141/2013 Page 2 of 3 have drawn this Court’s attention to the
Passport Manual 2010 which states that if
an applicant loses his Passport thrice and thereafter damages his Passport, his
name shall be placed in the ‘Prior
Approval Category’ for a maximum period of three years.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has
clear antecedents and had peacefully visited foreign countries on the Passport
issued to him for short terms for recreational purposes on visitor visas.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner states that though the
petitioner has lost his Passport thrice,yet there was no malafide on his part.She
emphasises that the petitioner had not intentionally misplaced and/or damaged
his Passport.
She denies that petitioner has taken any benefit of any loss
or damage to the Passport.
7. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and having
perused the paper book, this Court is of the view that every citizen has a
Fundamental Right to travel abroad and to have a Passport issued in his name.
In Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Another, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the
Supreme Court has held that ‘personal liberty’ within the meaning of Article 21
includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently, no person can be deprived of this right except according
to procedure prescribed by law.
8. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 stipulates the
grounds on which a Passport can be
refused.
9. It is not the stand of the respondents that the case falls
in any of the grounds mentioned in (a)
to (i) enumerated in Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967.
10. As far as the Passport Manual 2010 is concerned, this
Court finds that after loss of Passport
on three occasions, the Ministry is empowered to place the name of the said individual in ‘prior
approval category’. However, the W.P.(C) 5141/2013
same is not mandatory. The power to place the name of the
individual in ‘Prior Approval Category’
is a discretionary one, to be exercised for valid and cogent reasons like malafide intent as prescribed in
paras 3.11 and 3.12 of Passport c gb Manual.
11. In the present case, no material has been placed on
record to show that there was any malafide intent on the part of the
petitioner. No incident or event showing misuse of any of the lost/damaged
Passport has been placed on record.
12. The fact that the damaged Passport was voluntarily got
cancelled by petitioner through the respondents, proves the bonafide of the
petitioner.
13. Since the petitioner’s brother is also stated to be
settled in Australia, this Court is of the view that not issuing a Passport to
the petitioner would amount to violation of his Fundamental Right.
14. Consequently, present writ petition and application are
allowed and respondents are directed to re-issue Passport in favour of the
petitioner or in alternative issue fresh Passport in favour of the petitioner.
15. However, as the petitioner has been remiss in taking care
of his Passport, the petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to be
paid to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, New Delhi, within a period of
four weeks.
MANMOHAN, J
JULY 07, 2014
