Shravan Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors - Passport Impoundment Appeal

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 8, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Shravan Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 March, 2026

$~
* 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-

1. Mr. D.P. Singh, ASG and Special
   Counsel, ED with Mr. Manu Mishra
   and Ms. Garima Saxena, Advs for R-

2. 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.

LPA154/2026 Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 2. The application stands disposed of.

LPA 154/2026 & CM APPL. 18445/2026

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 LPA154/2026 Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 and in law, such relegation after a period of 05 years from the date when the
   writ petition was entertained, was also not warranted.

7.   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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1885496/), (1998) 8 SCC 1, refusal to exercise the
                     discretion under [Article 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) 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.
   

8.  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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1526429/) of the Passports Act provides adequate and efficacious
                     remedy of statutory appeal against an order impounding the passport under [Section 10(3)(b)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1135514/) 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 be dismissed at the threshold.
   

9.  We have heard the respective submissions made by learned counsel
                     for the parties and have also perused the record available before us on this
                     Letters Patent Appeal.
   

10.  Before adverting to the respective submissions made on behalf of the LPA154/2026                                                              Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 parties, we may note certain facts which are relevant for the purposes of
                      adjudication of the issue involved in this appeal.
    

11. The appellant was issued a passport on 20.01.2015. On the basis of
    certain information received from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a show
    cause notice was issued to the appellant on 16.03.2021. The said show
    cause notice is on record. It was stated in the said show cause notice that the
    passport was issued to the appellant on 20.01.2015 on the basis of an
    application made in that behalf by the appellant, however, a complaint had
    been received against the appellant from the ED alleging therein the
    appellant's non-cooperation to join the investigation in the case of Agusta
    Westland Helicopter Scam being conducted by CBI. The complaint further
    mentioned alleged non-cooperation of the appellant in regard to joining the
    Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi as summons were issued to the
    appellant by the Court.

12. The said show cause notice dated 16.03.2021, therefore, directed the
    appellant to show cause in writing as to why his passport may not be
    impounded or revoked under Section 10(3)(b)(c) &(h) of the Passports Act.
    The notice also provided that, in case, the appellant wanted to represent his
    case in person, he may visit Senior Superintendent (Policy) immediately on
    the receipt of the notice on any working day between 03:00 P.M to 04:00
    P.M.

13. The appellant appears to have submitted his reply to the show cause
    notice dated 16.03.2021 vide his letter dated 31.03.2021. In his reply, the
    appellant had stated, inter alia, that the show cause notice was non-specific
    in the sense that it did not explain as to how the ingredients of Section
    10(3)(b)(c) and (h) are met. It was further stated in the said reply by the LPA154/2026 Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 appellant that though the show cause notice dated 16.03.2021 referred to a
    complaint having been received from the ED, however, the complaint was
    not attached with the show cause notice. Reference was also made of the
    judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
    India & Anr, (1978) 1 SCC 248. In the reply, it was also submitted by the
    appellant that no summons had been issued by the Court of competent
    jurisdiction to the appellant.

14. Since nothing was heard after the reply to the show cause notice dated
    16.03.2021 was filed by the appellant, he instituted W.P.(C.) No. 4689/2021
    before this Court which was permitted to be withdrawn on the statement
    made before the Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that since he,
    at the relevant point of time was located in London, UK, he may be
    permitted to join the proceedings before the Regional Office through video
    conferencing.

15. The said statement stands recorded in the order passed by this Court
    on 15.04.2021. The said order also records a statement made by the learned
    ASG that no decision had been taken in the matter which emanated from the
    show cause notice dated 16.03.2021. The Court also proceeded to record the
    statement made on behalf of the respondent that there would be no difficulty
    in permitting the appellant to appear through video conferencing in the
    proceedings. The Court, accordingly, directed that proceedings pursuant to
    the show cause notice dated 16.03.2021 shall continue before the Regional
    Passport Officer. The appellant was also permitted to file a detailed reply to
    the show cause notice dated 16.03.2021. The Court further provided that if
    any hearing was to be held, the appellant would be permitted to join through
    video conferencing. The order dated 15.04.2021 passed by this Court in LPA154/2026 Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 W.P.(C.) No. 4689/2021 instituted by the appellant is extracted herein
    below:

"1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the present petition
   

   challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 16th March,
   2021, issued by the Regional Passport Office, Delhi
   (hereinafter, 'RPO') of Respondent No. 1.

2. After some hearing, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, ld. Counsel
   appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the
   present petition. He, however, prays that since the Petitioner is
   currently located in London, UK, he may be permitted to join
   through video conferencing in the proceedings pursuant to the
   show cause notice dated 16th March, 2021.

3. Mr. Chetan Sharma, Id. ASG submits that that no decision
   has been taken in the matter as yet, as the officer concerned has
   been detected to be COVID-19 positive. However, it submitted
   that there would be no difficulty in permitting the Petitioner to
   appear through video conferencing in the said proceedings.
   Accordingly, it is directed that the proceedings pursuant to the
   show cause notice dated 16th March, 2021 shall continue
   before the RPO. It is confirmed by the Ld. Counsel for the
   Respondents.

4. Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to file a detailed
   reply to the show cause notice dated 16th March, 2021. If any
   hearing is to be held, the Petitioner is permitted to join through
   video conferencing. The Petitioner's remedies, if any, against
   any decision that may be taken by RPO pursuant to the show
   cause notice, are left open to be availed of in accordance with
   law.

5. The petition, along with all pending applications, are
   disposed of in these terms"

6. After the said order dated 15.04.2021, another show cause notice
   dated 20.07.2021 was issued to the appellant, a perusal of which reveals that
   the said show cause notice was issued in continuance of the earlier show
   cause notice dated 16.03.2021.

LPA154/2026 Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 19. The basis of the second show cause notice is the same on which the
earlier show cause notice was issued. By the said show cause notice, the
appellant was directed to show cause as to why his passport may not be
impounded/revoked under Section 10(3)(b)(c) and (h) of the Passports Act within 07 days from the receipt of the said show cause notice. The said
notice also provided that in case the appellant wanted to represent his case in
person, he may visit Senior Superintendent (Policy) immediately of the
receipt of this letter on any working day between 10:00 A.M to 01:00 P.M.

1. The said show cause notice dated 20.07.2021 was received by the
   appellant on 28.07.2021 as is apparent from a perusal of the Track
   Consignment Report issued by the Indian Postal Department. The said
   documents are available at page 291-292 of this appeal which clearly reveal
   that the letter containing the show cause notice dated 20.07.2021 was
   received by the appellant on 28.07.2021.

2. Accordingly, in terms of the requirement of the show cause notice
   dated 20.07.2021, the appellant was to furnish his reply by 04.08.2021 i.e.
   within 07 days from the receipt of the show cause notice. Since the time
   stipulated in the show cause notice dated 20.07.2021 for furnishing the reply
   was 07 days as such the time available to the appellant to reply to the said
   show cause notice was till 04.08.2021, however, before the time to respond
   to the said show cause notice could expire, the final order impounding the
   passport of the appellant was passed on 03.08.2021.

3. The appellant, before the order dated 03.08.2021 was passed, had
   instituted W.P.(C.) No. 7997/2021. The said writ petition was filed by the
   appellant challenging the show cause notice dated 20.07.2021, however, on
   10.08.2021, the writ petition was dismissed with the liberty to the appellant LPA154/2026 Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 to assail the final order dated 03.08.2021.

4. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the said writ petition
   vide order dated 10.08.2021 had also noticed the submission made on behalf
   of the appellant that he had not been served with the copy of the order dated
   03.08.2021 by that time. In response to the said grievance raised on behalf
   of the appellant before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the
   respondent undertook to provide another copy of the said order dated
   03.08.2021 to the appellant though with the contention that a copy of the
   said order was already sent to the appellant.

5. It is this order dated 03.08.2021 which became the subject matter of
   challenge in the underlying writ petition, namely W.P.(C.) No. 9509/2021
   wherein, apart from challenging the final order dated 03.08.2021, the
   appellant also challenged the show cause notices dated 16.03.2021 and
   20.07.2021. The said writ petition has been disposed of, as observed above,
   by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge relegating the
   appellant to avail the statutory remedy against the order dated 03.08.2021,
   under Section 11 of the Passports Act.

6. We may, at this juncture, also notice that while entertaining W.P.(C.)
   No. 9509/2021, this Court vide an order dated 03.09.2021 had provided that
   the respondent shall stand restrained from taking any coercive action against
   the appellant in pursuance of the order dated 03.08.2021.

7. The proceedings of the writ petition thereafter proceeded further and a
   counter affidavit on behalf of the Passport authorities was filed in the said
   writ petition. Impleadment was also sought by the ED which was allowed,
   however, no counter affidavit was filed by the ED.

8. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has declined to LPA154/2026 Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 entertain the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of an alternative
   remedy under Section 11 of the Passports Act. It is this order dated
   13.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge that has been assailed before
   us in this intra-Court appeal.

9. The sole question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the
   impugned judgment where the learned Single Judge has refused to exercise
   his discretion to entertain the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
   of India on the ground of availability of statutory remedy in the instant case
   is sustainable.

10. It is settled law that ordinarily in the wake of availability of an
    efficacious statutory remedy against the action impugned before the High
    Court in proceedings under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the
    party approaching the Court should be asked to avail the statutory remedy,
    however, under certain circumstances, refusal to entertain a writ petition
    may become fatal. As to under what circumstances, despite availability of
    the statutory remedy, the writ petition ought to be entertained has
    elaborately been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment
    in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court
    has carved out certain exceptions where the discretion under Article 226 to
    entertain a writ petition may not be refused even in the wake of availability
    of an alternative remedy and such exceptions are (1) if the action
    complained against suffers from the vice of non-observance of principles of
    natural justice, (2) where the order or proceedings are wholly without
    jurisdiction and (3) where vires of an Act is under challenge.

11. Paragraph 15 of the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation (supra) is
    apposite to be extracted here which reads as under:-

LPA154/2026 Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50

"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court,
having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to
entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court
has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that
if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High
Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the
alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not
to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely,
where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any
of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation
of the principle of natural justice or where the order or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an
Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point
but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely
on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the
constitutional law as they still hold the field."
31. Reference, in this regard, may be had to a judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 5235/2021 titled Renew Power Private
Limited v. National E Assessment Centre Delhi where the final order was
passed before expiry of the period of submitting the response to the show
cause and the Court, relying on Whirlpool Corporation (supra), has held
that in such a situation, the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for entertaining the writ petition may not be refused solely on the
ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy.

1. Having noticed the law as regards the circumstances where this Court, while entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not relegate a party approaching the Court to a statutory remedy, we now proceed to examine as to whether the facts of the instant case warranted refusal of exercising the discretion by learned Single Judge for entertaining the writ petition, or not.

LPA154/2026 Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 33. The case set up by the appellant has already been discussed above.
The first show cause notice to the appellant was issued on 16.03.2021
pursuant to which the reply is said to have been submitted by the appellant
on 31.03.2021. Since no decision in the matter was taken, W.P.(C.) No.
4689/2021 was preferred by the appellant which was disposed of with the
observation that the appellant may file detailed reply and further that the
appellant shall be permitted to participate in the proceedings, drawn
pursuant to the show cause notice dated 16.03.2021, through video
conferencing.

1. Thereafter, the second show cause notice was issued to the appellant
   on 20.07.2021 which was received as per the Track Consignment Report of
   the Indian Postal Department, by the appellant on 28.07.2021. The time
   period as given in the show cause notice dated 20.07.2021 for furnishing the
   reply expired on 04.08.2021; however, the final order was passed even
   before expiry of the said period, i.e. on 03.08.2021. These facts are
   undisputed.

2. Further, what we notice, as pointed out by learned counsel for the
   appellant, is that the final order dated 03.08.2021 does not discuss even the
   reply said to have been submitted by the appellant on 31.03.2021.

3. For the aforesaid facts of the situation, prima facie, the appellant has
   been able to make out a case where the impugned order appears to have
   been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and, accordingly,
   having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation (supra), in our opinion, it was a case where
   discretion of the learned Single Judge to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not have been declined solely LPA154/2026 Page 11 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 for the reason of availability of a statutory remedy available under Section
   11 of the Passports Act.

4. Having regard to the nature of proceedings which are drawn by the
   authorities by invoking Section 10(3) of the Passports Act and the situation
   to which a passport holder is likely to land himself once the passport is
   revoked, principles of natural justice assume special significance keeping in
   view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi (supra).

5. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the learned
   Single Judge has erred while refusing to entertain the writ petition on the
   ground of availability of remedy of statutory appeal under Section 11 of the
   Passports Act, specially keeping in view the fact that the petition was
   entertained way back in the year 2021 itself.

6. The appeal, thus, deserves to be allowed. Resultantly, the appeal is
   allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2026 passed by
   the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 9509/2021 is hereby set aside and
   the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration of the
   Writ Petition afresh. The Writ Petition is restored to its original number.

7. We have been informed that the counter affidavit in the proceedings
   of the writ petition has not been filed by the ED. Accordingly, we permit
   that the counter affidavit, if any, shall be filed by the ED within a period of
   two weeks, rejoinder affidavit to which shall be filed by the appellant within
   a week thereafter.

8. We request the learned Single Judge to expedite the proceedings of
   the writ petition and decide the same as early as possible, say within a period
   of two months from the date of completion of pleadings.

LPA154/2026 Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50 42. We make it clear that the observations made in this judgment are only
for the purposes of deciding the instant appeal and the same may not be
construed as our reflection so far as the merit of the challenge in the writ
petition is concerned. It will be open to the parties to take all the pleas which
may be available to them under law before the learned Single Judge.

1. Since all the parties in the writ petition are represented before us in
   this appeal, let the writ petition before the learned Single Judge be listed on
   06.04.2026. The appellant will be at liberty to make a fresh application
   seeking interim order, if any, before the learned Single Judge and in case
   such an application is preferred by the appellant, the same shall also be dealt
   with expeditiously.

2. There shall be no order as to costs.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

                                                                                  TEJAS KARIA , J

                      MARCH 24, 2026
                      N.Khanna LPA154/2026                                                           Page 13 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:25.03.2026 19:27:50