2007 (4) TMI 747 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Withholding of Passport
2. Violation of Section 10(1) of the Passport Act, 1967
3. Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India
4. Arbitrary Exercise of Power by Authorities

Summary:

1. Withholding of Passport:
The petitioner, an Indian citizen involved in the export of garments, approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the respondents' action of withholding his passport No. E5934818 issued on 24-6-2003 and valid up to 26-6-2013. The petitioner claimed that the withholding was arbitrary, contrary to law, and prejudicial to his interests. The respondents justified their action by stating that the passport was deliberately lost to benefit someone unauthorizedly, leading to its withholding for nearly two years.

2. Violation of Section 10(1) of the Passport Act, 1967:
The petitioner argued that the respondents' action violated Section 10(1) of the Passport Act, 1967, which allows the passport authority to impound or return a passport after serving a notice. The respondents contended that the passport was retained lawfully under Sections 419, 420, 460, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code based on FIR No. 209 of 2002. They claimed that releasing the passport could lead to the petitioner avoiding the process of law.

3. Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner asserted that the action infringed his freedom under Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the case of Rajinder Kaur v. Union of India, emphasizing that the freedom to travel abroad is a fundamental right. The court noted that any executive action prejudicial to a person's interests must be supported by legislative authority and that the authorities must have material to substantiate their objections.

4. Arbitrary Exercise of Power by Authorities:
The court observed that the power vested in the passport authority under Section 10(1) of the Act must be exercised in accordance with settled norms and judicial pronouncements. The court highlighted that arbitrary exercise of power calls for judicial intervention. The court found that the respondents' action was arbitrary and without plausible cause or justification. The court quashed the respondents' action and directed them to return the passport to the petitioner forthwith, allowing the petition with costs quantified at Rs. 2500/-.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, finding the respondents' action of withholding the passport arbitrary and without justification. The court directed the respondents to return the passport to the petitioner immediately.