Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Refusing To Entertain Writ Petition Against Passport Impounding, Cites Serious Civil Consequences

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order refusing to entertain a writ petition challenging the impounding of a passport, holding that the matter warranted consideration in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) where the Supreme Court had held that under certain circumstances, refusal to entertain a writ petition may become fatal.The Court was dealing with an intra-court appeal filed against the February 13 order of the Single judge, which had relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967.The Court observed that while the existence of an alternative statutory remedy ordinarily discourages the exercise of writ jurisdiction, such a rule is not absolute.Examining the facts, the High Court found that the final order impounding the petitioner's passport had been passed even before the expiry of the time granted to him to respond to the show cause notice. The Bench noted that the petitioner had received the notice on July 28, 2021, with time to reply until August 4, 2021, but the impounding order was issued on August 3, 2021.The Court further observed that the impugned order did not reflect consideration of the petitioner's earlier reply and appeared to have been passed in breach of procedural fairness. “For the aforesaid facts of the situation, prima facie, the appellant has been able to make out a case where the impugned order appears to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and, accordingly, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation (supra), in our opinion, it was a case where discretion of the learned Single Judge to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not have been declined solely for the reason of availability of a statutory remedy available under Section 11 of the Passports Act,” it said.The Court also emphasised that proceedings relating to impounding of passports have serious civil consequences, making adherence to principles of natural justice particularly significant, as recognised in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.As such, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the matter be taken up by the Single Judge afresh.Appearance: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manoj Sharma, Mr. Yudhishter Singh, Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Dev Vrat Arya, ms. Shreya Chauhan, Mr. Samraat Saxena, Ms. Deeya Mittal, Mr. Pulkit Shree, Advs. for Appellant; Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC with Ms. Ananaya Shamshery and Ms. Anchal Kashyap, Advs. for R-1 to R4. Mr. D.P. Singh, ASG and Special Counsel, ED with Mr. Manu Mishra and Ms. Garima Saxena, Advs for R5.Case title: Shravan Gupta v. UoICitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 312Case no.: LPA 154/2026Click here to read order

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Refusing To Entertain Writ Petition Against Passport Impounding, Cites Serious Civil Consequences

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags