Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ibra Khan vs Union Of India Th.(Ministry Of External on 19 May, 2026
08
Regular
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 1051/2026 CM(2746/2026).
IBRA KHAN.
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate with
Ms. Syed Ainain Qadri, Advocate.
Mr. Ahmad Basuad, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA TH.(MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS) AND OTHERS.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with
Ms. Bisma Ali, Advocate.
Mr. Faizan, CGC for R1 and R2.
Mr. Alla-ud-din Ganai, AAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL , JUDGE .
ORDER
19.05.2026
01. The matter was taken up in the morning, however, due to the non-
availability of learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the case was
directed to be listed after the break.
02. Keeping in view the urgency projected by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the matter was heard at length on behalf of the petitioner
as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2.
The situation, however, remained unchanged, as there was still no
representation on behalf of respondent No. 3.
03. Mr. Salih Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
argued that the impugned order cannot sustain the test of law and
is liable to be quashed. He submitted that the Passport Officer had
issued a show-cause notice to the applicant under Section 10(3)(b)
of the Passport Act, 1967 directing him to explain as to why
Passport No. C3626165 should not be impounded/revoked under
the said provision.
04. The impugned order reveals that since the applicant (the petitioner
herein) failed to respond to the show-cause notice within the
stipulated period and also did not surrender the passport, the
Passport Officer, being the Passport Authority in terms of Schedule I
of the Passport Rules, 2000 read with Section 2(c) of the Passport
Act, 1967 has exercised the power of impounding the said passport
issued in favour of the petitioner by invoking Section 10(3)(g) of the
Passport Act, 1967.
05. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Section 10(3)(b) of the
Passport Act, 1967 deals with the impounding or revocation of a
passport or travel document for the reasons stipulated therein, and
empowers the Passport Officer to impound the said passport.
However, in the instant case, although the Passport Officer issued a
show-cause notice under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967,
the final action has been taken under Section 10(3)(g) of the
Passport Act, 1967, which, according to Mr. Salih Pirzada, learned
counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case in hand.
06. By way of clarification, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that Section 10(3)(g) of the Passport Act, 1967 can be invoked only
in the eventuality that the holder of the passport or travel
document, has failed to comply with a notice issued under Section
10(1) requiring him to deliver up the same, which admittedly has
not occurred in the instant case.
07. He further submits that no notice under Section 10(1) of the
Passport Act, 1967 has ever been issued and such notice can be
issued only in the eventuality where the contingencies contemplated
under Section 6(1)(a) to (d) of the Passport Act, 1967 are satisfied. In
the present case, it is contended that none of the said statutory
contingencies has been either recorded or reflected, thereby
rendering the invocation of the impugned action legally
unsustainable.
08. With a view to advance his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that in the instant matter, no such
contingency has been reflected in the show-cause notice, nor has
any notice under Section 10(1) of the Passport Act, 1967 been
issued, which could have made out a justifiable cause for the
respondents to take final action under Section 10(3)(g) of the
Passport Act, 1967. It is, therefore, contended that the action taken
by the respondent- Passport Officer cannot sustain the test of law,
as the same has been taken without proper application of mind and
by resorting to wrong provision of law and is thus liable to be set
aside.
09. In addition, Mr. Salih Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Passport Authority is under an obligation to record
in writing brief reasons for passing such an order, in conformity
with Section 10(5) of the Passport Act, 1967, and such reasons are
required to be furnished to the holder of the passport or travel
document on demand. He further submits that this requirement can
only be dispensed with, where the Passport Authority is of the
opinion that it would not be in the interest of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India
with any foreign country or in the interest of the general public to
furnish such reasons.
10. Placing reliance upon the impugned order passed in the present
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such
satisfaction has been recorded, nor have any reasons been spelled
out in the impugned order which could have given a justifiable
cause/basis for impounding the passport of the petitioner. Thus,
viewed from any angle, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the impugned order cannot sustain the test of law and is liable
to be set aside.
11. While the matter was being argued, learned counsel for the
petitioner further laid emphasis on the fact that the material which
weighed with the Passport Authority for impounding the passport of
the petitioner is not forthcoming from the record, as no reasons
have been disclosed in the impugned order. It is submitted that
there is only a passing reference to some adverse report in the
impugned order, which allegedly weighed with the Passport Officer
while passing the said order without disclosing the nature or
contents of the said report.
12. At this stage, Mr. T. M. Shami, learned DSGI appearing on behalf of
respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that since the CID Department
has furnished a confidential report, the same is not accessible to the
public at large being a confidential document and this is the precise
reason as to why the details of the adverse report have not been
reflected in the impugned order. However, he submits that the said
adverse report must have been considered by the Passport Officer
before passing the impugned order.
13. Mr. T. M. Shami, learned DSGI appearing on behalf of respondents
No. 1 and 2 also could not satisfy the Court with regard to the
averments pleaded in the instant petition with regard to the
issuance of the show-cause notice under Section 10(3)(b) of the
Passport Act, 1967 and simultaneously taking action under Section
10(3)(g) of the said Act, when both provisions are applicable in
different contexts.
14. Since the very basis for passing the impugned order is the adverse
report which allegedly weighed with the Passport Officer, this Court,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, deems it
appropriate to examine the same. With a view to proceed further in
the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct Mr. Alla-ud-din,
learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondents to produce the
adverse material, if any, in a sealed cover on 22nd May, 2026
positively, so that the present matter, in which urgency has been
expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is brought to its
logical conclusion.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL )
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
19.05.2026
Bisma Jan.
