9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Withholding of passport without justification and authority of law.
Analysis: The petitioner's grievance in this case pertains to the withholding of the passport without any valid justification or legal authority. The petitioner was issued the passport in 1993 but was directed to surrender it in 2003 due to alleged links with a banned association called SIMI. The petitioner, however, claimed to have resigned from the association in 1995. The Passport Act, 1967 authorizes the passport authority to vary or cancel conditions of passport issuance with prior approval from the Central Government. In this instance, the respondents ordered the surrender of the passport based on a report from the police authorities without any other substantial grounds. Upon perusal of the affidavits-in-reply and hearing the arguments, it was observed that no further action under section 10 of the Passport Act had been taken by the authorities regarding the petitioner's passport. The court noted that there was no legal provision allowing the detention of a passport solely based on suspicion or past associations with banned organizations. Consequently, the court found no justification for withholding the petitioner's passport at that stage. The authorities were instructed to return the passport to the petitioner within a week, with the liberty to take appropriate legal action if necessary and in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondents to return the passport promptly. The judgment emphasized that while the petitioner was entitled to the passport's return, the authorities could pursue lawful actions if valid grounds existed, ensuring compliance with legal procedures. The court made the rule absolute with no order as to costs, allowing the issuance of a true copy of the order upon payment of usual charges.
|
