1972 (3) TMI 101 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the decision to impound the petitioner's passport.
2. Breach of principles of natural justice and fair play.
3. Material basis for the decision to impound the passport.
4. Alleged mala fide action.
5. Constitutionality of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act under Article 14.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Decision to Impound the Petitioner's Passport:
The petitioner challenged the decision of the Union of India to impound his passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967. The decision was communicated to him by the Regional Passport Officer, Bombay, on November 25, 1971. The petitioner argued that the decision was arbitrary as it did not specify which ground under Section 10(3)(c) was applicable. The court noted that the affidavit clarified that the passport was impounded "in the interests of general public" and that the original decision dated June 11, 1971, indeed mentioned this ground. The court found that the decision did not suffer from non-application of mind.

2. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play:
The petitioner argued that the decision to impound his passport was made without giving him a hearing, thus breaching the principles of natural justice and fair play. The court emphasized that even administrative decisions affecting civil consequences must adhere to natural justice principles. The court referenced several cases, including *State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei* and *A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India*, to support this view. The court concluded that the impugned decision, which affected the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21, was invalid as it was made without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

3. Material Basis for the Decision to Impound the Passport:
The petitioner contended that there was no material justifying the impounding of his passport in the interests of the general public. The supplemental affidavit filed by the respondents cited serious frauds in the London Branch of the Central Bank of India involving unauthorized guarantees and irregularities by the petitioner. The court scrutinized the material and found that the alleged irregularities by the petitioner were unconnected with the frauds committed by Sami J. Patel, the former Manager. The court held that the material disclosed did not have a rational nexus with the ground of general public interest, rendering the impugned decision arbitrary and invalid.

4. Alleged Mala Fide Action:
The petitioner alleged that the decision to impound his passport was mala fide, taken at the instance of the Central Bank to force him to continue his employment. The court did not delve deeply into this issue as it found the impugned decision invalid on other grounds. However, the court noted that the material disclosed did not support the claim of mala fide action.

5. Constitutionality of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act under Article 14:
The petitioner argued that if the court concluded that no hearing was required before impounding the passport, then Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, as it had already concluded that the principles of natural justice were not excluded by the Act, and the impugned decision was invalid on other grounds.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the decision of the Central Government to impound the petitioner's passport and directed the respondents to forbear from taking any further steps in implementation of the impugned decision. The court made the rule absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition and awarded costs to the petitioner.