Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Rahul Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 January, 2014

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan

                                                                                #43
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 457/2014
       RAHUL GUPTA                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through        Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                          versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ANR              ..... Respondents
                     Through             Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC

%                                  Date of Decision : 21st January, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                               JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) CM APPL. 884/2014 in W.P.(C) 457/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 457/2014 & CM APPL. 883/2014

1. Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to issue a passport to the petitioner in accordance with law.

2. In the writ petition, it is averred that respondent no. 2 has refused to issue a passport to the petitioner only on the ground that petitioner's Adoption Deed dated 20th September, 1989 has not been registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar.

3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, adoption deed is not required to be registered compulsorily.

4. However, Mr. Jatan Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent-UOI states that present petition is premature as no decision on petitioner's application has been taken by the passport authority till date.

5. He has further drawn this Court's attention to a judgment of this Court in Teesta Chattoraj Vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 2888/2011 decided on 30th March, 2012 wherein it has been held as under:-

"26. The fundamental right available under Article 21, which includes the right of locomotion and to travel abroad, is subject to reasonable restrictions. It cannot be said that a citizen has a right to obtain a passport by furnishing incorrect or wrong information with regard to his name, age, address or parentage. He cannot claim that non issuance of the passport with incorrect/false information is infringing his fundamental right of locomotion or to travel abroad. In my view, it cannot be said that the passport authority has no jurisdiction whatsoever to go into the issue of correctness or otherwise of the adoption deed, even in case where, on the face of it, the said adoption deed appears to be in contravention of the law. The enquiry that the passport authority is required to undertake under Section 5 of the Passport Act is a serious enquiry. Such an enquiry cannot be done cursorily or perfunctorily. If, during the course of the enquiry, it comes to the notice of the passport authority that the documents provided by the applicant did not support the claims made by the applicant in his application for issuance of a passport, he would not only be entitled, but would be duty bound to raise the issue with the applicant. A passport is not only a travel document, but is also an identity document. The identity of a person is determined, inter alia, by his parentage. Therefore, unless there is a legal adoption of the applicant, he/she is bound to give the name of his/her natural parents and cannot choose to provide the name of the adopted parent(s) in his/her application form."

6. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that every citizen of India has fundamental right to travel abroad. Though the said right is subject to reasonable restrictions, yet this Court is of the opinion that the restrictions have to be in accordance with law and the same cannot be unreasonable.

7. Since Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not provide for compulsorily registration of an adoption deed and a new adoption deed cannot now be registered in the present case as the age of the petitioner is above fifteen years, this Court is of the view that petitioner cannot be directed to produce a registered adoption deed.

8. This Court in Teesta Chattoraj vs. Union of India (supra) has only held that a citizen who furnishes incorrect/false information cannot be issued a passport. Further, the Court in the aforesaid judgment held that for issuance of a passport, the adoption of the applicant has to be legal. However, this Court never held that an adoption deed must be compulsorily registered.

9. In fact, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mihir Ramesh Vora Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P. 1617/2013 decided on 14th August, 2013 has held as under:-

"14] In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case therefore, we direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner's application dated 25.09.2012 for issuance of passport in accordance with law, without insisting upon production of registered adoption deed. We make it clear however, that the respondent No.2 is at liberty to take into consideration any other issues relating to the identity, police verification and fulfillment of other requirements as may be prescribed by the Passports Act, 1967 or the rules made thereunder."

10. Keeping in view the aforesaid, present writ petition and application are disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to dispose of petitioner's application in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.

Order dasti.

MANMOHAN, J JANUARY 21, 2014 rn W.P.(C) 457/2014 Page 4 of 4