2020 (9) TMI 839 - HC - Indian Laws

Release of Passport - order of declaration of proclaimed person not present - Section 10(3) (h) of the Passports Act, 1967 - opportunity of hearing not provided to petitioner - HELD THAT - In the writ petition Respondent No.1 had impugned the seizure memo dated 23.04.2019 (Annexure P.11) and letter dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure P.14) conveying the reason for the action. Ld. Single Judge has rightly concluded that not only was the impugned action void and illegal being violative of the principles of natural justice even the reason furnished for impounding that she had been declared a proclaimed person was non- existent. The passport had not been impounded under Section 10(3) (e) on the ground of proceedings in respect of a criminal offence pending against respondent No.1 which is the ground pressed by the appellant to justify its impounding - It is well settled that the validity of an administrative order has to be justified solely by the reasons mentioned therein. On that touchstone the impugned orders cannot sustain. Appeal dismissed - However the costs are reduced to ₹ 10,000/- from ₹ 1,00,000/-.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the seizure memo and impounding order of the passport.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.
3. Validity of the reasons provided for impounding the passport.
4. Potential for administrative overreach and violation of fundamental rights.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Seizure Memo and Impounding Order of the Passport:
The respondent, Dalbir Kaur, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure memo dated 23.04.2019 and the impounding order dated 17.05.2019. The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar, to release the passport within 15 days. The court found that the impounding was based on the ground that Dalbir Kaur had been declared a proclaimed offender by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. However, the court noted that she had already been granted bail on 17.12.2018, and the proclamation order ceased to be operative.

2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice and Statutory Provisions:
The court emphasized that under Section 10(5) of the Passports Act, 1967, furnishing reasons for impounding a passport is mandatory. The Delhi High Court had earlier directed the passport authorities to provide a copy of the statement of reasons for impounding the passport, which was not complied with. The court held that the absence of prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing violated the principles of natural justice. The court cited the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and ors (1978) 1 SCC 248, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness.

3. Validity of the Reasons Provided for Impounding the Passport:
The court found that the reason provided for impounding the passport—that Dalbir Kaur had been declared a proclaimed offender—was non-existent as she had already been granted bail. The court referred to the case of Smt. Deeksha Puri Vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 159, which clarified that the declaration of a proclaimed offender ceases to be operative once the person appears before the court and is granted bail. The court also noted that the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were bailable offenses, and no condition regarding the surrender of the passport could be imposed.

4. Potential for Administrative Overreach and Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The court observed that the actions of the Regional Passport Officer stemmed from "legal malice" and constituted administrative overreach, breaching the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The court highlighted that the power to impound a passport is quasi-judicial and interferes with constitutional rights, leading to civil consequences. The court concluded that the impounding of the passport without following due process was void and illegal.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality in the order of the Single Judge. The court reduced the costs from ?1,00,000 to ?10,000 but clarified that the authorities could pass subsequent orders for impounding the passport on justifiable grounds as per the Passports Act and settled law. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing valid reasons for administrative actions that affect fundamental rights.