PRADEEP KUNDALIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: The petitioner's case is that he was holding an Indian passport and while he was on a visit to Hong Kong, this passport was lost. On his return to India, the petitioner applied for the issuance of a duplicate passport but the respondent No.2 by his communication dated 27th April 1998 intimated to the petitioner his inability to issue the said passport to him on the ground that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not clear the name of the petitioner for the grant of such a passport. It is this order of respondent No.2 which the petitioner has assailed in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Grant of passport undoubtedly is a valuable right of every citizen of India. Refusal to grant a passport undoubtedly is an act which has to be preceded by objective considerations and principles of fair play and natural justice. If a citizen of India is being denied the right of the grant of a passport, the cardinal principles of audi alterem partem immediately come into play with the result that a right of hearing immediately accrues to the person who is sought to be denied the grant of a passport. Unless, therefore the person being deprived of this right is afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard, no order refusing to grant the passport can be passed. This is the basic and cardinal principle of law.

(3.) In the instant case, I find that the respondent No.2 passed the order of refusal of granting passport to the petitioner only on the ground that he had been informed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 that since certain cases were sub judice against the petitioner, the passport facilities should not be granted to him at present. In fact, the communication dated 27th April 1998 makes an observation about some recommendations made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for denying to the petitioner the facility of the grant of a passport and apparently it is on the basis of this recommendation made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to respondent No.2 that the passport has been refused to the petitioner.