[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Niamat Feroz vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2026
Serial No. 02
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 173/2026 CM(390/2026)
NIAMAT FEROZ ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through: Mr. Arfat Rashid Lone, Advocate with
Mr. Taha Khaleel, Advocate
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ...Respondent(s).
Through: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI with
Ms Yasmeena Jan, Adv. for 1 & 2
Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG for 3
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
19.02.2026
1. The learned DSGI, representing the respondents 1 & 2, at the very
threshold objected to the maintainability of the instant petition on the
ground that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy provided
under Section 11 of the Passport Act, which has not been exhausted by
her. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal,
submitted that the alternate remedy purportededly available in terms
of Section 11 of the Passport Act, by filing an appeal against the order
of refusal of respondent No. 2 regarding issuance of a passport in
favour of the petitioner, is not efficacious, as the Appellate Authority
has its office at New Delhi and it is not practicable and convenient for
the aggrieved person to avail such remedy. He submitted that forcing
the petitioner to avail the remedy before the Appellate Authority is
likely to make her to forgo her fundamental right guaranteed under
Articles 19 & 21 of our Constitution.
2. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on
the judgment of this Court dated 12.04.2024 passed in a batch of
clubbed petitions, with lead case bearing CM No.5737/2023 in WP(C)
No. 2429/2023 titled "M/S Hotel Alpine Ridge & Ors Vs. Union of
India & Ors.", in which, a Division Bench of this Court has observed
that the borrowers, being proceeded under the provisions of
SARFAESI Act, cannot be forced to approach the Debt Recovery
Tribunal at Chandigarh, which is a far-off place, and the said remedy
not being an efficacious, the aggrieved person can invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for the enforcement of their rights.
3. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this
Court titled "Sajad Ahmad Khan Vs. U.O.I & Ors." passed in WP(C)
No. 3010/2024 decided on 31.05.2025, in which, a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India was entertained by this court
and appropriate orders passed in the case of a petitioner whose
passport had been impounded.
4. It is felt appropriate to address the issue of maintainability at the final
disposal of the case along with the other fact- legal issues involved in
it.
5. The respondents shall file their reply/objections in the matter
positively by the next date of hearing.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner in respect of his
prayer for grant of interim relief. Also heard the appearing counsel for
the respondents in rebuttal. Considered the rival submissions.
7. List on 30.03.2026.
8. In the meantime, the non-applicants/respondents are directed to
actively re-consider the case of the applicant/petitioner in the light of
the facto-legal grounds taken in the petition and submit a status report
positively by the next date of hearing. Let copies of this order
accompanied with the copies of the main petition be forwarded to the
non-applicants/respondents for compliance.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
19.02.2026
ARIF
