Passport revocation without personal hearing or consideration of prior replies violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, an Indian passport holder engaged in international business, challenged the revocation of his passport via an "Impugned Order" dated August 3, 2021, and show cause notices dated March 16, 2021, and July 20, 2021.

The revocation followed communications from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), although the petitioner claimed he was not named as an accused in any ECIR.

Despite a previous court order in W.P.(C) 4689/2021 allowing him to participate in proceedings via video conferencing, the passport authorities issued a second show cause notice requiring physical appearance and passed the final revocation order before the reply period had expired.

The petition was initially dismissed on the grounds of an alternative statutory remedy, but a Division Bench in LPA 154/2026 remanded the matter, noting prima facie violations of natural justice.

1. Whether the revocation of the petitioner’s passport was vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of an effective hearing.

2. Whether the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967, absolutely bars the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, regarding the revocation of passports.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks establishes that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction if there is a violation of natural justice.

The landmark principle from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, emphasizing that passport revocation significantly impacts personal liberty and requires strict adherence to natural justice.

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, asserting that the right to travel and hold a passport are facets of Article 21, and restrictions must bear a rational nexus to a legitimate purpose.

The court found that the passport authorities acted in haste and procedural unfairness; specifically, the final revocation order was passed on August 3, 2021, even though the deadline to reply to the show cause notice was August 4, 2021.

The authorities failed to address the petitioner’s prior written reply and ignored the court's earlier direction to allow participation via video conferencing.

The court reasoned that since the passport had expired during the pendency of the litigation, the immediate grievance regarding the revocation could be resolved by directing the authorities to consider a fresh application.

The court underscored that any decision regarding a passport must not be mechanical and must respect the constitutional right to personal liberty.

The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s renewal/re-issuance application in accordance with the law and the principles laid down in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, while allowing investigating agencies to submit their inputs for consideration by the deciding authority.