Passport retention must rest on statutory grounds and record-based reasons; arbitrary refusal to return it violates travel liberty.

The Passport Act, 1967 permits withholding, impounding, or refusal to return a passport only on statutory grounds supported by reasonable, record-based material; mere pendency of a case, without showing that the holder falls within those grounds, is insufficient. The court also held that refusal to return a passport affects the freedom to travel abroad, which forms part of personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21, and such administrative action must be fair, reasoned, and non-arbitrary. On the facts, the impugned retention lacked plausible justification and was liable to writ correction, with mandamus issued for return of the passport and costs awarded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the passport authority was justified in withholding and refusing to return the petitioner's passport under the Passport Act, 1967; (ii) Whether the impugned action was arbitrary and infringed the petitioner's constitutional rights.

Issue (i): Whether the passport authority was justified in withholding and refusing to return the petitioner's passport under the Passport Act, 1967.

Analysis: The power under sections 6 and 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 is discretionary but not unfettered. Any refusal, impounding, or retention of a passport must fall strictly within the statutory grounds and be supported by reasonable and cogent material. Mere pendency of a case, unsupported by reliable record and without showing that the petitioner was an accused or otherwise covered by the statutory grounds, does not justify continued detention of the passport.

Conclusion: The refusal to return the passport was not justified under the Passport Act, 1967.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned action was arbitrary and infringed the petitioner's constitutional rights.

Analysis: Freedom to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty and is protected by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Administrative action affecting that liberty must be fair, reasoned, and based on record. On the facts, the respondents acted contrary to their own material and without plausible justification, rendering the action arbitrary and liable to be struck down in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Conclusion: The impugned action was arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's constitutional rights.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to mandamus directing return of the passport, and the writ petition succeeded with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A passport can be withheld or refused only on the basis of statutorily specified grounds supported by reasonable, record-based material, and any arbitrary deprivation of the right to travel abroad is amenable to writ correction.

---