The Kerala High Court has clarified the legal obligation of police authorities to issue certificates of passport loss under Section 58 of the Kerala Police Act, rejecting extraneous grounds for refusal. This judgment reinforces the procedural rights of citizens in passport-related matters and sets clear expectations for administrative compliance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a resident of Kollam, reported the loss of his passport (No. R365323) to the Kannelloor Police Station in July 2025. Despite submitting a formal request (Exhibit P4) and an affidavit (Exhibit P3), the second respondent (Station House Officer) refused to issue a certificate of loss. The refusal was based on undisclosed grounds, as evidenced by Exhibit P6, which the petitioner challenged as arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
Procedural History
The dispute progressed through the following stages:
- July 2025: Petitioner reported passport loss and requested a certificate under Section 58 of the Kerala Police Act
- August 2025: Petitioner filed an RTI application (Exhibit P1) to ascertain the status of his request
- June 2025: Earlier writ petition (W.P.(C) 23502/2025) secured an interim order (Exhibit P5) directing the police to consider the request
- February 2026: Present writ petition filed seeking mandamus to compel issuance of the certificate
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to issue a certificate of loss within a specified timeframe
- A declaration that the police cannot reject such requests on extraneous grounds
- Directions to the Regional Passport Office (fifth respondent) to process his re-issuance application upon production of the certificate
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the police are legally bound to issue a certificate of passport loss under Section 58 of the Kerala Police Act upon receipt of a valid report, and whether they can refuse such requests on grounds not prescribed by law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that:
- Section 58 of the Kerala Police Act imposes a mandatory duty on police to issue certificates for lost documents upon report
- The refusal violated his fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it delayed passport re-issuance
- The police circular (Exhibit P7) and earlier judicial orders (Exhibit P5) supported his claim
- The second respondent’s refusal lacked legal justification and was arbitrary
For the Respondents
The respondents, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, did not contest the petitioner’s claim during the hearing. Instead, they submitted that a provisional certificate of loss had been issued, resolving the immediate dispute.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework governing passport loss reporting and police duties:
-
Statutory Duty Under Section 58: The Court noted that Section 58 of the Kerala Police Act explicitly requires police to issue certificates for lost documents, including passports, upon receipt of a report. This duty is ministerial and not discretionary.
-
Arbitrariness of Refusal: The Court observed that the second respondent’s refusal (Exhibit P6) lacked any legal basis. It emphasized that administrative authorities cannot impose conditions or grounds for refusal not prescribed by statute.
-
Right to Travel: The Court reiterated that delays in passport re-issuance due to bureaucratic hurdles infringe upon the right to travel, a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. It cited Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to underscore the importance of procedural fairness in passport-related matters.
-
Judicial Precedent: The Court relied on its earlier interim order (Exhibit P5) in W.P.(C) 23502/2025, which had already directed the police to consider the petitioner’s request. This reinforced the principle that police cannot evade their statutory obligations.
"The issuance of a certificate of loss under Section 58 is not a matter of discretion but a statutory duty. The police cannot refuse such requests on extraneous grounds, as this would amount to an arbitrary exercise of power."
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The second respondent was recorded to have issued a provisional certificate of loss to the petitioner.
- The fifth respondent (Regional Passport Office) was directed to process the petitioner’s re-issuance application upon production of the certificate, in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Cannot Refuse Certificates on Extraneous Grounds
The judgment clarifies that:
- Section 58 of the Kerala Police Act imposes a mandatory duty on police to issue certificates of loss for passports and other documents
- Refusals based on grounds not prescribed by law (e.g., pending investigations, unrelated disputes) are arbitrary and liable to be quashed
- Practitioners should cite this judgment to challenge unjustified delays or refusals in similar cases
Passport Re-Issuance Process Streamlined
- The Regional Passport Office must process re-issuance applications upon production of a police certificate, without further delay
- Petitioners can seek mandamus to compel compliance if authorities create unnecessary hurdles
- The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative procedures must not infringe upon fundamental rights, such as the right to travel
Actionable Takeaways for Practitioners
- For Citizens: Report passport loss immediately to the nearest police station and demand a certificate under Section 58
- For Lawyers: Challenge arbitrary refusals by filing writ petitions citing this judgment and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
- For Authorities: Ensure compliance with statutory duties under the Kerala Police Act to avoid judicial intervention
