Shravan Gupta v. Union of India & Ors

TEJAS KARIA , J MARCH 24, 2026 N.Khanna

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 % LPA 154/2026 SHRAVAN GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manoj Sharma, Mr. Yudhishter Singh, Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Dev Vrat Arya, ms. Shreya Chauhan, Mr. Samraat Saxena, Ms. Deeya Mittal, Mr. Pulkit Shree, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC with Ms. Ananaya Shamshery and Ms. Anchal Kashyap, Advs. for R-1 to R- 4. Mr. D.P. Singh, ASG and Special Counsel, ED with Mr. Manu Mishra and Ms. Garima Saxena, Advs for R- 5. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL) CM APPL. 18446/2026 & CM APPL. 18447/2026 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. LPA 154/2026 & CM APPL. 18445/2026 3. Heard Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Manoj Sharma, Adv., Ms. Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Garima Saxena, Adv. for respondent No.5. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal has been taken up and is being decided at the admission stage itself. 5. This intra-Court appeal filed under Clause 10 of Letters Patent seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) No. 9509/2021, instituted by the appellant – petitioner against the order dated 03.08.2021, passed by the respondent No.3 impounding the passport of the appellant – petitioner under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Passports Act'), has been disposed of relegating the appellant to the remedy of appeal under Section 11 the Passports Act. 6. The appellant had also challenged, in the writ petition instituted by him before the learned Single Judge, the validity of the show cause notices dated 16.03.2021 and 20.07.2021 which culminated into the final order dated 03.08.2021 impounding his passport. 7. As observed above, learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order has disposed of the writ petition, relegating the appellant to avail the remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the facts and circumstances of the case, relegating the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act was unwarranted and, in fact and in law, such relegation after a period of 05 years from the date when the writ petition was entertained, was also not warranted. 9. Further submission on behalf of the appellant is that as a matter of fact, it was a case where the facts demonstrate clearly that the order dated 03.08.2021 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and also in derogation of directions issued by this Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the appellant and, accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1, refusal to exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution by the learned Single Judge by relegating the appellant to seek the appellate remedy is unwarranted and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 10. Opposing the appeal, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 have stated that Section 11 of the Passports Act provides adequate and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal against an order impounding the passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality so as to call for any interference by this Court in this appeal. The prayer, thus, made on behalf of the respondents is that the appeal