Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka dismissed a writ petition filed by an Urdu-language journalist challenging a communication issued by the Regional Passport Authority after his passport was revoked. Refusing to intervene under Article 226, the Court held that passport renewal is not automatic and found no justification to grant relief or to facilitate issuance of a travel document in the circumstances placed on record. The order notes that intelligence and police inputs alleged he was likely to engage with handlers or elements abroad and in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. The judge also observed that in matters involving public interest and national security, the usual requirements of natural justice may not apply.

The petitioner, a journalist claiming to be a citizen of India, challenged the action of the Regional Passport Authority in revoking his passport by letter dated 25.10.2019 invoking proviso to Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967. He contended that the revocation was affected without affording him an opportunity of explanation and without assigning reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union Government, National Medical Commission On Plea Seeking To Exclude Doctors From Consumer Protection Act

The respondents stated that the revocation followed a communication dated 17.10.2019 from the Intelligence Department, Telangana, indicating that the petitioner’s application for issuance of passport or travel document may be refused under Section 5(2)(c) of the Act, as he was likely to engage in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Commissioner of Police filed a counter stating that a discrete enquiry was conducted and referred to petitioner’s alleged involvement in Crime No.155/1998 and other activities, including alleged links with anti-social elements and instances of broadcasting content in sensitive communal matters. The petitioner filed a rejoinder denying the allegations and stating that the earlier criminal case had ended in acquittal.

The Court observed that “The passport of petitioner was revoked by the 2nd respondent on 25.10.2019.” It further recorded that “In this Writ Petition, petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 09.12.2019 which is only clarification to the letter given by petitioner on 12.11.2019 and in the said communication, petitioner was advised to take orders from Court recommending issuance of passport.”

The Court noted, “Petitioner has not challenged the revocation order, dated 25.10.2019 for the reasons known to him.” It added, “When there is no specific prayer or challenge to the revocation order, dated 25.10.2019, petitioner cannot expect any orders in his favour.”

On the material placed by the authorities, the Court recorded that there was a detailed counter regarding the activities attributed to the petitioner and that “there is separate file opened against him to keep a vigil on his unlawful activities and he is under surveillance by the police.” The communication of the Intelligence Department was noted, stating that issuance of passport “may be refused, as he may are likely to engage with anti-national elements / handlers outside India and his activities are prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.”

The Court stated, “It is to be noted, renewal of passport is not an automatic one and is governed by the rules and regulations. Any travel document issued by the 2nd respondent should be used in a proper manner. When the activities of petitioner are under surveillance by the police, this Court should be careful enough to consider the case of petitioner, that too, when it is seriously alleged that his activities would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, this Court does not feel any justification in favour of petitioner to grant relief.”

With respect to relief under Article 226, the Court stated, “Grant of relief under Article 226 of Constitution is a discretionary one.” It also recorded, “Though petitioner pleaded that action of the 2nd respondent is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, this Court is unable to countenance the same for the aforesaid reasons.”

On natural justice, the Court stated, “When public interest, national security, impracticality, confidentiality are involved, the question of applying principals of natural justice does not arise.”

Also Read: Marriage Under Hindu Marriage Act Unsustainable If One Party Not Governed By It: Telangana High Court Allows Appeal, Declares ST Woman–SC Man Marriage Void

The Court recorded, “Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners:  Sri Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned counsel

For the Respondents: Sri R. Mangulal, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader.

Case Title: Mr. Akram Ali Mohammed v. The Union Government of India & Others

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3114 of 2020

Bench: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka