Statutory travel restriction in bankruptcy proceedings upheld as trustee's notice to passport authority was only consequential.

Communications from a Bankruptcy Trustee to the passport authority, advising restraint on a bankrupt petitioner's overseas travel during subsisting insolvency proceedings, were treated as consequential notices within the insolvency framework and not as an independent exercise of power under the Passports Act. Section 141(1)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was applied as creating a statutory bar on foreign travel without permission of the Adjudicating Authority, and the trustee's role was recognised as administering the estate and ensuring compliance with that mandate. The Article 21 challenge failed because the restriction was not arbitrary and permission could still be sought from the National Company Law Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the communications issued by the Bankruptcy Trustee to the passport authority, seeking restraint on the petitioner's overseas travel during subsisting bankruptcy proceedings, were without jurisdiction, amounted to impounding of passport, and violated the petitioner's right to personal liberty.

Analysis: The statutory order declaring the petitioner bankrupt was found to be operative and unstayed, and the consequences flowing from that order continued to operate. Section 141(1)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was treated as creating a statutory prohibition against overseas travel without permission of the Adjudicating Authority. The communications in question were held to be only informational and consequential, intended to bring the statutory position to the notice of the passport authority, and not an exercise of power under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. The Bankruptcy Trustee's role under the insolvency framework was held to include administering the estate and ensuring compliance with the statutory mandate. The plea based on Article 21 was rejected because the restriction was not arbitrary and the petitioner retained the remedy of seeking permission before the National Company Law Tribunal. The writ petition was also viewed as an attempt to circumvent the statutory process in the face of pending proceedings under the insolvency regime.

Conclusion: The communications were held to be within the statutory framework and not illegal, and the challenge to them failed.

---