Shravan Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9509/2021 & CM APPL. 21709/2026
Date of Decision: 19.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:-

SHRAVAN GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate, Mr.
Tanvir Ahmed Mir, Sr. Advocate, Mr.
Yudhister Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr.
Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr.
Pulkit Shree, Mr. Dev Vrat Arya,
Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC, Ms.
Ananya Shamshery, Adv. for UOI.
Mr. DP Singh, ASG and Special
Counsel, Mr. Manu Mishra, Ms.
Garima Saxena and Mr. Imaan Khera,
Advs. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 21710/2026 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9509/2021 & CM APPL. 21709/2026
3. The present petition assails the order dated 03.08.2021 and show
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:10:09

cause notices dated 16.03.2021 and 20.07.2021 (“Impugned Order”)
issued under Section 10(3)(b), 10(3)(c) and 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act,
1967, whereby, the petitioner’s passport was revoked.
4. The petitioner is an Indian passport holder and claims to be engaged
in international business activities. It is the case of the petitioner that certain
proceedings were initiated by the passport authorities on account of
communications received from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
5. It is stated that the petitioner was not named as an accused in ECIR or
in the prosecution complaints.
6. The petitioner submits that owing to business commitments and
medical reasons the petitioner was residing abroad and, therefore, sought
participation in the proceeding through virtual mode.
7. Vide order dated 15.04.2021 in W.P.(C) 4689/2021, this Court
permitted continuation of proceedings before the passport authorities and
recorded that, if any hearing was required, the petitioner would be allowed
to participate through video conferencing.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the order dated 15.04.2021,
a show cause notice dated 20.07.2021 was issued requiring petitioner’s
physical appearance. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 03.08.2021
revoking the passport came to be issued.
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have revoked
petitioner’s passport without affording opportunity of hearing.
10. Vide order dated 13.02.2026 this petition was disposed of and the
petitioner was relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy of appeal
under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:10:09

1
11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)
before the Division Bench of this Court. Vide order dated 24.03.2026, the
Division Bench noted that the impugned order dated 03.08.2021 was passed
prior to the expiry of the period granted under the show cause notice dated
20.07.2021. The Court further noted that the earlier reply submitted by the
petitioner had also not been dealt with and thereupon, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondents was called upon to explain as to why the
impugned order should not be set aside. The specific reference to paragraph
nos. 33 to 38 can be made which are extracted as under:
“33. The case set up by the appellant has already been discussed above.
The first show cause notice to the appellant was issued on 16.03.2021
pursuant to which the reply is said to have been submitted by the appellant
on 31.03.2021. Since no decision in the matter was taken, W.P.(C.) No.
4689/2021 was preferred by the appellant which was disposed of with the
observation that the appellant may file detailed reply and further that the
appellant shall be permitted to participate in the proceedings, drawn
pursuant to the show cause notice dated 16.03.2021, through video
conferencing.
34. Thereafter, the second show cause notice was issued to the appellant
on 20.07.2021 which was received as per the Track Consignment Report
of the Indian Postal Department, by the appellant on 28.07.2021. The time
period as given in the show cause notice dated 20.07.2021 for furnishing
the reply expired on 04.08.2021; however, the final order was passed even
before expiry of the said period, i.e. on 03.08.2021. These facts are
undisputed.
35. Further, what we notice, as pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellant, is that the final order dated 03.08.2021 does not discuss even
the reply said to have been submitted by the appellant on 31.03.2021.
36. 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

1
LPA 154/2026 dated 24.03.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:10:09

available under Section 11 of the Passports Act.
37. Having regard to the nature of proceedings which are drawn by the
authorities by invoking Section 10(3) of the Passports Act and the
situation to which a passport holder is likely to land himself once the
passport is revoked, principles of natural justice assume special
significance keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Maneka Gandhi (supra).
38. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the learned
Single Judge has erred while refusing to entertain the writ petition on the
ground of availability of remedy of statutory appeal under Section 11 of
the Passports Act, specially keeping in view the fact that the petition was
entertained way back in the year 2021 itself.”

12. A bare reading of the aforesaid would indicate that the petitioner has
been deprived of an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the impugned
order.
13. Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent, on instructions, submits that in the interregnum the passport of
the petitioner has expired. She further submits that if the petitioner applies
for a fresh passport, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
She further submits that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of
hearing before taking a decision.
14. The aforesaid stand satisfies the grievance raised by the petitioner.
The petitioner will have to apply for renewal of the passport. If he does so,
let an opportunity of hearing be afforded to the petitioner. His application be
dealt with in accordance with law.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union
2
of India & Anr. observed that renewal or reissuance of a passport upon
expiry is to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Passports
Act and cannot be denied mechanically. The Court further emphasised that

2
2025 INSC 1476
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:10:09

denial of renewal of a passport does not operate in a vacuum. The right to
travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to
personal liberty under Article 21 and, therefore, any restriction on such right
must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose.
16. In view of the aforenoted, the respondents while considering the
petitioner’s applications shall bear in mind the observations made in
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal .
17. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition along with pending
application stands disposed of. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set
aside.
18. The decision-making authority shall be at liberty to consider the
submissions made by any other investigating agencies etc.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2026
Sh/ss


Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:10:09