JUDGMENT By the medium of this writ peti­tion, petitioners have sought writ of quashing the impugned orders bearing Nos. R001916/11 and R001915/11 dated 22.06.2012, whereby and where-under the applications for issuance of passports in favour of the petitioners stands rejected with the further prayer that respondents may be commanded to issue passports in favour of the peti­tioners on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Respondents have filed reply. 3. Before filing the present writ pe­tition, petitioners had filed OWP No. 1558/2011 before this Court and the said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2012. It would be appropriate to reproduce the opera­tive portion of the said order herein: "In the given scenario, the respondent No. 3 is directed to process the case of petitioners and submit his report thereof to respondents 1 and 2 within a period of one week, who shall there­after consider the same and make a decision thereof, within a period of three weeks, in terms of the rules oc­cupying the field." 4. Complying with the aforesaid di­rection, the respondents refused pass­ports to the petitioners. The sole ground taken by the respondents, on the basis of which the passports to the petition­ers have been declined, is that son of the petitioners exfiltrated to PoK in the year 1995 for obtaining illegal arms and ammunitions training. 5. Admit. With the consensus of learned counsel for the parties the case is taken up for final disposal. 6. The sole question is that if 'A' commits crime, can 'B' be punished? The reply is in negative. Thus, in the given circumstances the action of the respondents on the face of it is illegal. 7. Apex Court in case titled Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramrathnam, (1967) 3 SCR 525 has held that no per­son can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure es­tablished under law. It is apt to repro­duce para-31 of the said judgment herein: "31. For the reasons mentioned above, we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that under Article 21 of the Constitu­tion no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to pro­cedure established by law. For the reasons mentioned above, we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that under Article 21 of the Constitu­tion no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to pro­cedure established by law. It is not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating or depriving per­sons of such a right." 8. Same view was taken by the Apex Court in the case titled Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another, (1978) 1 SCC 248 . This Court also while deal­ing with an identical case OWP No. 551 / 2008 titled Sajad Ayoub Bhat Vs. State and others, has held that it is not per­missible under law that when "A" has committed a crime, "B" should be pun­ished. In the instant case, respondents have not alleged anything against the petitioners. Even the Division Bench of this Hon"ble Court in case (LPA) No. 184 of 2009 Addl, Director General of Police Vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad Wani & Ors, has taken the same view. 9. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this court coupled with mandate of Clause-C of sub-Clause (2) of Section 6 of the Pass­port Act, read with the reply filed by respondents, the action of respondents in denying passport to the petitioners is illegal and violative of mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the given circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, impugned or­der bearing No. R001916/11 and R001915/11 dated 22.06,2012 are quashed, with the direction to respon­dent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioners afresh while keeping in view the observations made hereinabove and the rules occupying the field within four weeks. 11. Writ petition is, accordingly, dis­posed of along with connected CMP.