CHOITHRAM VERHOMAL Vs. A G KAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition raises a question of considerable importance. The question can be given two alternative formulations. Do the government of India have an absolute and unfettered discretion to grant or refuse a passport to a citizen of India no right to get a passport from the government of India.

(2.) IT is common ground that the petitioner is a citizen of India. He says that he is partner of a firm in Bombay which carries onto business of Bankers, Exporters and Importers and also of a firm in Dubai, in the Persian Gulf, which carries on the business of Indent Agents and Importers. I am told that Dubai in part of British protectorate. The petitioner claims, and this is not disputed that passports were granted to him during the period from October 1952 and October 1962 to enable him to make trips to Dubai and certain ports in the Persian Gult. The Last passport issued in favor of the petitioner express on 28th October 1962. On 10th January 1963 the petitioner applied to the Regional passport officer, who is the second respondents to this petitioner for the grant of a new passport for a period of three years. That application was rejected by the second respondents on 24th May 1963. The petitioner made some further efforts, but was informed by the Assistant passport officer who is respondents No. 1 to this petition by a letter dated 27th June 1963 that his office had nothing to add to the privies letter of 24th May 1963, and that the petitioner may appeal for reconsideration of his case to the chief passport office, New Delhi. No reasons were communicated to the petitioner for the rejection of this application for a fresh passport. On these fact the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the constitution for an appropriate writ or direction to quash the order refusing to grant him a passport and for a direction against the respondents requiring them to grant and issue to hi a passport as applied for.

(3.) THE petition is supported on three main grounds. It is alleged, firstly that it is absolutely necessary for the petitioner to go abroad and to return to India for the purpose of his business, and that the refusal of the passport by the respondents amounts to a contravention of his fundamental amounts to contravention of his fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution. In this connection the petitioners says that it is not possible for him leave India without a passport, because the government of India have issued instructions to the shipping and Air leaving India with out a valid passport and also because even if the petitioners were to go abroad without a passport the entry into India without a passport is forbidden by law and involves penal consequences. The second ground of the petition is that the respondent refusal to grant a passport to the petitioner amount to an infringement of his right to enter India and to reside, and is therefore, violative of the fundamental right declared under article 19 (1) (d) and (e) of the constitution. The petitioner claim thirdly that the refusal of a passport without assigning any reason without giving the petitioner any opportunity be being heard or of showing cause is arbitrary, that a number of passports have been given to various of persons and who are similarly situated as the petitioner, and that the refusal of passport to the petitioner is contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution as it amounts to a discrimination against the petitioner.