JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 13.10.1999 (Annexure P-13) vide which the Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 11(1) of
the Passports Act, 1967, praying for restoration of passport facilities and travel documents to them.
2. Petitioner No. 1, Sukhdev Singh, is a retired Kanungo, aged about 67 years. Petitioner No. 2, Sukhminder Kaur, is aged 60 years and is real sister of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3, Pinderpal kaur is wife of Malwinder Singh who is son of petitioner No. 1. All three of them applied to the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh, for issuance of passports. Petitioner No. 1 received letter dated 2.8.1996 from the Regional Passport Officer stating that he was sympathiser to terrorists during the days of militancy and since the local police has reported against him, he was asked to clarify his stand in this regard. Petitioner No. I submitted his reply through his counsel that he is a retired Kanungo from the Revenue Department and none of his family members was sympathiser of terrorists. He stated that his two sons are journalists and they used to write against the State repression and police atrocities which was the main cause of enmity of local police. A similar letter dated 23.8.1996 was received by petitioner No. 2 in which she was informed that she was indulging in anti-national activities. She was asked to explain her position accordingly. In her reply submitted through counsel, petitioner No. 2 submitted that she has no criminal background and report of the police is false and baseless. Likewise, petitioner No. 3 also received letter dated 23.8.1996 alleging anti-national activitiese against her. To the said letter, she filed reply refuting the allegations. She submitted that her husband was involved in two false cases which related to publishing of certain articles against the State police. She stated that as far as she is concerned, she is not involved in any criminal case. Regional Passport Officer despite having received clarification/explanation from the petitioners, did no: issue them the passports. Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1061 of 1997 which was disposed of by this Court on 12.2.1998 directing the petitioners to file an appeal against order dated 6.1.1998 passed by the Regional Passport Officer during the pendency of writ petition. Petitioners challenged order dated 6.1.1998 before the Chief Passport Officer at New Delhi. In their appeal, they specifically mentioned that there was no criminal case pending against them and the police reports were biased as the two sons of petitioner No. 1, being journalists, had been writing against the police atrocities. According to the petitioners, appellate Authority did not try to find out the basis of the police reports and rejected their appeal vide order dated 13.10.1999. The relevant part of the order of Chief Passport Officer reads as under :-
“In their petitions, the appellants (applicants) have stated that they are not sympathisers of terrorists activities. No case has been registered against them. The only reason for their enmity with the local police is that the two sons of Shri Sukhdev Singh are journalists and they used to write against the State repressive machinery and police atrocities. They state that the local police have
given a vague report without any substantial material. They have requested for restoration of passport facilities.
The cases were again referred to the police authorities concerned for reconsideration of their recommendation. However, they maintained that no passport facilities should be granted to them.
After having carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of these cases including the written appeals filed by the appellants, I, S.R. Tayal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India and Chief Passport Officer, in exercise of powers conferred upon me as appellate authority under Section 11(1) of the Passports Act, 1967 and Section 14 of the Passports Rules, reject their appeals and uphold the refusal order.
A/19427/96
A/20606/96
A/20670/96
dated 6.1.1998 passed by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh.”
The afore-mentioned order is being challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the material brought on record on the basis of which petitioners have been refused passports and travel documents are totally without any basis and from these, it cannot be inferred that petitioners’ going abroad would ever be a threat to the security of State.
3. In response to notice of the writ petition, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is contended therein that after verification, Sr. Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, vide letters dated 22.7.1996 and 23.9.1997 has stated that petitioners were closely linked with terrorists and their house was being used a hide-out for the terrorists and if they are permitted to go abroad, they would continue their terrorist activities from there. Likewise, reply by way of an affidavit of Sh. R.B.S. Sandhu, D.S.R. (R) Sangrur, has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 in which it has been stated that the police has recommended not to issue passport to the petitioners because Malwinder Singh @ Malli is a terrorist activities minded person who used to provide shelter to terrorists. Due to his activities, two FIRs were registered against him. Respondent No. 4 denied that the local police was inimical towards Malwinder Singh @ Malli because he used to write against the State repression and atrocities of the Punjab Police.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
5. Right to travel abroad, i.e. to move out of India and return to India is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Satwant Singh Sawlmey v. D. Ramarathuam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and others, AIR 1967 SC 1836 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid
down that Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes within its ambit the right to go abroad.
6. In this case, petitioners have been refused facility of passports under Sections 6(2)(b) and (c) of the 1967 Act which reads as under :-
6(2). Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely :-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
From a reading of the above, it is apparent that it is within the power of the Passport Authority to refuse to issue passport or travel document if it is satisfied that there is likelihood of applicant engaging outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India and his departure from India may be detrimental to the security of the State. The law, however, requires that satisfaction must be based on material which may be available to the Authority concerned. This Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 18232 of 1998, Dr. Sohan Singh v. Union of India etc. decided on 2.12.1999 while considering the scope of Section 6(2.)(b) and (c) held that”…… satisfaction recorded by
the passport Authorities, however, is not wholly immune from the power of judicial review. The Court can always examine the materials on the basis of which the requisite satisfaction was arrived at by the Passport Authorities. If on examination of the materials, the Court finds that the satisfaction arrived at by the Authorities is without any application of mind or the satisfaction recorded is not grounded on materials which are of rationally probative value or satisfaction is such that no reasonable person would arrive at, then the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can correct the error committed by the Passport Authorities.” In the present case, Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh, refused passport facilities to the petitioners by saying that “security agencies on verification have intimated that whole of your family had remained associated with anti-social activities, which are endangering the security of the country”. On an appeal filed by petitioners, Chief Passport Officer, affirmed the order of the Regional Passport Officer only by saying that the cases were again referred to the police authorities for reconsideration of their recommendation but they have maintained that no passport facilities should be granted to the petitioners. Deputy Superintendent of Police in his affidavit dated 4.5.2000 filed on behalf of Senior Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 4) has stated that the local police did not recommend issuance of passports to the petitioners be-
cause Malwinder Singh @ Malli, son of petitioner No. 1, is terrorist activities minded person who used to provide shelter to terrorists. In this regard, reference has been made to two FIRs. FIR No. 98 dated 6.8.1998 P.S. Bhawanigarh under Sections 124A and 295A of Ihe Indian Penal Code was registered against Malwinder Singh @ Malli on the charge that he had published material in newspaper “Jantak Paigam” which was objectionable under Sections 124A and 295A, I.P.C. In this case, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide his judgment dated 24.2.1998 acquitted Malwinder Singh @ Malli of the charge framed against him. Likewise, FIR No. 52 dated 11.4.1997 was registered against Malwinder Singh @ Malli under Section 3/4 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and Sections 124A and 153A, I.P.C. In the said case, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted an application under Section 321, Code of Criminal procedure, for withdrawal of the prosecution against the accused. On consideration of the application, Additional Judge, Designated Court, Sangrur, vide order dated 5.12.1998 permitted the Additional Public Prosecutor to withdraw prosecution against the accused and Malwinder Singh @ Malli was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Malwinder Singh @ Malli was also detained under the National Security Act, 1980. The Advisory Board to whom the case of the said detenu was referred under Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980, found that there were no sufficient grounds to warrant the detention of said Malwinder Singh @ Malli and therefore, his detention order was revoked and he was ordered to be released forthwith.
7. It is worth noticing that Malwinder Singh @ Malli is employed in the Education Department as a teacher for the last 3-1/2 years. In case he was involved in any anti-national activities, it has not been explained how he was found suitable for appointment in service after due verification. Otherwise also, there is no material nor one could be pointed out by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that during the period of militancy in Punjab, petitioners gave shelter to terrorists. The only material produced on record is the statement made in affidavit dated 4.5.2000 of Deputy Superintendent of Police that two FIRs were registered against Malwinder Singh @ Malli, son of petitioner No. 1f. As already noticed, case relating to one FIR resulted in acquittal while in the second case, State by making an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. to the Court, withdrew from the prosecution. Thus, there being no other material for showing that petitioners if permitted to go abroad would engage in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India and detrimental to the security of India, order refusing passport facilities to the petitioners cannot be sustained. Right to travel abroad being a part of the right conferred on the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away on the grounds which cannot stand the judicial scrutiny.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and order
dated 6.1.1998 passed by Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh, deciding to refuse passport facilities to the petitioners under Section 6(2)(b) and (c) of the Passports Act, 1967 and order dated 13.10.1999 (Annexure P-13) passed by Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi, in appeal, being not sustainable in law are hereby quashed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to issue passports to the petitioners within two weeks from the submission of applications by them in prescribed form along with a certified copy of order of this Court. No costs.
9. Petition allowed.