Can’t deny passport renewal over address dispute: HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the renewal of a passport cannot be rejected over a disputed property listed as the address in the renewal application, as travel abroad is a fundamental right. The court directed the passport office to renew the passports of a woman and her two sons within four weeks, stating that the officials acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction. The passport office had rejected the renewal applications due to a property dispute over the address provided. The court held that the rejection was not allowed under the Passport Act.

Mumbai: Holding that travel abroad is a fundamental right, the Bombay high court has said that the renewal of a passport cannot be rejected over a disputed property being listed as the address in the renewal application.

HT Image

A bench of justices AS Chandurkar and Firdosh P Ponniwalla was on December 15 hearing a petition by a woman and her two sons urging the court to quash of orders of the Mumbai passport office, which refused to renew their passports over an underlying property dispute.

The court directed the passport officers to renew the petitioners’ passports within four weeks, noting that they reside at the mentioned address. It said that the Passport Act does not allow rejection of renewal applications on account of property disputes, and held that the officials acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction.

In December 2020, the passport office through two orders rejected the renewal applications because the address provided by the family was for a room, in Sion-Koliwada area of the city, that belonged to some other family member who raised an objection.

The petitioners argued that the office acted arbitrarily in rejecting their renewal request. They said that since their old passports were issued on the same address, renewal cannot be rejected on the said grounds.

The passport office contended that instead of approaching the court, the petitioners should first approach the appellate authority and sought dismissal of the petition.

The HC rejected the stand of the passport office saying that an alternate remedy by itself does not divest the court of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, which states that high courts have the power to issue writ or orders to any person or authority under their jurisdiction.

“It is a settled law that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 [protection of life and liberty] of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is obvious that no person can be deprived of this right, except according to the procedure established by the law,” the court said.