ABDUL HAMID Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged communication dtd. 26/12/2024 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been asked to furnish proper clarification/ explanation regarding the adverse Police report and to furnish 'NOC' from the concerned Court.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was holding Indian Passport No. Z2758821 issued on 3/12/2014, which was valid upto 2/12/2024. On 29/10/2024, the petitioner applied for renewal/fresh passport in the office of respondent No. 2. It seems that vide communication dtd. 12/12/2024, issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was intimated regarding adverse Police verification report and he was informed regarding his involved in some FIR/ court case. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to visit the office of respondent No. 2 and clarify the issue. It has been submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid communication, the petitioner furnished a comprehensive explanation to respondent No. 2 and intimated him that the ACB has filed a charge sheet against the petitioner in respect of FIR No. 5/2021 for commission of offences under Ss. 5(1)(d), read with Sec. 5(2) of the J&K PC Act and Sec. 120-B RPC before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Anticorruption Cases), Jammu. Respondent No. 2 was further informed that the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid proceedings before this Court by way of WP(C) No. 587/2021, titled Abdul Hamid and others vs. UT of J&K and Ors. and CRM(M) No. 928/2024, titled Abdul Hamid and others vs. UT of J&K and others, which are pending before this Court. It has been further submitted that pursuant to the clarification furnished by the petitioner, the impugned communication came to be issued by respondent No. 2.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication on the grounds that the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the Passports Act, 1967. It has been submitted that right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and the petitioner cannot be denied passport accept in accordance with law. It has been further contended that the impugned communication is violative of principles of natural justice and reflects mala fide exercise of power on the part of respondent No. 2.