S. No.101 Reg.. list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1007/2024 CM(2747/2024) TAHA YASEEN AND ANR. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Younis, Advocate Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI with Ms. Yasmeen Jan, Advocate Ms. Maha Majid, AC vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 12.03.2025 1. The petitioners in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the following reliefs:- A. Writ of in the nature of certiorari may be passed by virtue of which the adverse verification, if any, reported against the petitioners by the respondents 2 and 3 may be quashed. B. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents 1 & 4 to issue passport in favour of the petitioners namely Taha Yaseen & Najmu Saqib sons of Rafiq Ahmad Ahanger Residents of Hari Pari Gam Awantipora Pulwama J&K. C. Any other order or relief which this Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. 2. It is being stated that the petitioner No. 1 being possessed of a B.Tech Degree in Mechanical Engineering was holding a valid passport bearing No. J7895650 with its validity w.e.f 07.05.2011 upto 06.05.2021 and sought its renewal before the respondents after completing all requisite formalities, besides depositing the requisite fee, and that the petitioner 2 as well had applied for issuance of a fresh passport before the respondents through online mode on 03.03.2021, whereafter the respondent 4 addressed a letter bearing No. SG1078013686423 to petitioner 1, seeking certain clarification/ explanation from petitioner 1 within a period of 30 days on account of some adverse remarks made by CID Wing of the Police Department, and that the explanation sought though was submitted by the petitioner 1, yet the respondent 4 did not issue renewal passport either in favour of the petitioner 1 or else the petitioner 2, without assigning any reasons, necessitating the filing of the instant petition before this Court. 3. 3. Reply to the petition has been filed by respondents 1 & 4 wherein it is being admitted that the petitioners had applied for issuance of passport in the year 2023 under File No. SG3066065832422 and SG1078013686423 dated 03.02.2022 and 31.05.2023 respectively, whereupon a report/verification was sought from District Senior Superintendent of Police qua the antecedents of the petitioners under and in terms of section 5 of the Passport Act of 1967 being a mandatory requirement and in response thereto, the Special Director General of Police, J&K furnished report bearing Nos. CID/PP/NR/23/001618 and CD/PP/NR/23/000749 dated 11.11.2023 and 20.05.2024 respectively, providing therein that the information available with CID wing of the Police Department does not favour recommendation of the issuance of passport in favour of the petitioners while making an endorsement “not recommended” and consequently the petitioners came to be informed about the same in terms of notices dated 23.01.2024 and 30.05.2024 respectively. 4. The respondent 3 as well has filed reply to the petition, wherein it is being admitted that the issuance of the passport in favour of the petitioners was not recommended by the answering respondent in view of the verification of the antecedents of the petitioners, according to which the father of the petitioners is an OGW of the terrorist organization Hizbul Muhaideen and that one of the brother the petitioners namely Zahoor Ahmad Ahanger was an active terrorist involved in case FIR No. 16/1996 registered with Police Station Awantipora and had got killed by some unknown gunmen in the year 2003 and that the another brother of the petitioners namely Saif-Ullah Ahanger too was a terrorist of Hizbul Muhaideen Organization and had got killed in an encounter with the security forces on 24.03.2013 and besides that, the Uncle of the petitioners namely Abdul Aziz Ahanger of Hariparigam Awantipora, is a Pak trained terrorist and that the paternal brother of the petitioners namely Abdul Qayoom Najar of Hariparigam Awantipora, was working in the Army (JKLI) as a constable, however, he too left the Army and joined the terrorist organization and was later killed in an encounter with security forces at Hariparigam Pulwama, and, therefore, as per the said field report, as also considering family affinity of the petitioners to the terrorism, and also upon making a reasonable assessment that the petitioners would pose a risk to the security and integrity of India, the issuance of passport in favour of the petitioners was “not recommended”. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners while making his submission invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench in case titled as “Mohammad Amir Malik Vs. Union of India” decided on 11.02.2025 and would contend that the said judgment securely covers the case of the petitioners herein, in that in the said case as well the issuance of the passport in favour of the petitioner therein was not recommended and consequently not issued, owing to the reason that one of the brother’s of the petitioner therein in the said petition was involved in Militancy related incident and got had killed in an encounter with security forces on 24.04.2011 and that the father of the petitioner therein as well as enlisted as an OGW in the record of police. 6. Perusal of the judgment supra passed by the Coordinate Bench indisputably tend to show that the same squarely covers the instant case as well and the reliefs granted in the said judgment by the Coordinate Bench as such are required to be granted in favour of the petitioners herein as well more so on the basis of the analysis under taken by the Coordinate Bench qua the provision of the Passport Act in general and section 6 (2) in particular inasmuch as having regard to the position and principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as “Sawant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramaratham reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836” as well as in case titled as “Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another reported in (1978) 1 SCC page 284” besides the judgment passed by this Court in case titled as “Sajad Ayoub Bhat Vs State and Ors.” being OWP No. 551/2018, this Court has no reason to take a view different than that has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Mohammad Amir Malik supra. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed as a consequence whereof, the respondent 3 herein is directed to re-visit and re- consider the cases of the petitioners in the light of above and law laid down within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is made available to him by the petitioners. The said exercise be under taken uninfluenced by the earlier reports. 8. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 12.03.2025 “S.Nuzhat”