2023 (8) TMI 1040 - HC - Indian Laws

Violation of principles of natural justice - Impounding of petitioner's passport - wrong information given by agent at the time of renewal application - case of petitioner is that the impounding was done without notice to the petitioner - HELD THAT - The petitioner was employed as labourer in foreign countries. He was working in Singapore and later in Middle East. The action taken by the respondent cannot be faulted. If false particulars and false documents are given, the Passport Authority has no option but to impound the passport - The petitioner has no where challenged the basic premises on which the impugned action is resting. Therefore, the question of granting declaration as sought for does not arise. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the human angle. It is a fact that the citizens take the services of middle men and agents to transact with the authorities. In this case, the agent employed by the petitioner had indulged in fraud. In order to quicken the process of obtaining passport, he has given false particulars. During verification, the same came to light - However, for almost nine years, the petitioner has been without any passport. Obviously his life and career has been affected. Even if the petitioner had committed a mistake, he cannot be condemned for ever. The biblical concept of eternal damnation goes ill with the reformatory trend in modern jurisprudence. The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh application before the respondent - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Impounding of passport without notice, legality of passport cancellation due to false particulars.

Impounding of Passport without Notice:
The petitioner's passport was impounded without notice to him, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the impounding was done without proper notice, seeking a declaration that the cancellation of the passport was illegal. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that impounding was justified due to false particulars submitted by the petitioner through an agent.

Legality of Passport Cancellation:
The respondent argued that the impounding of the passport was a consequence of the petitioner submitting false particulars, which warranted such action. The court noted that the petitioner had worked as a labourer in foreign countries, including Singapore and the Middle East, and upheld the impounding of the passport in such circumstances. The court emphasized that when false particulars and documents are provided, the Passport Authority is obligated to impound the passport.

The court acknowledged the use of middlemen and agents by citizens to interact with authorities, highlighting the fraudulent actions of the agent employed by the petitioner in this case. Despite recognizing the petitioner's mistake in providing false particulars, the court expressed concern over the disproportionate impact on the petitioner's life and career due to being without a passport for almost nine years. The court rejected the idea of eternal condemnation, instead opting for a reformatory approach in modern jurisprudence.

In light of the above considerations, the court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh passport application, with the hope that the petitioner had learned from the experience and would provide accurate information this time. The court directed that any such application would be considered by the respondent, and if there were no other impediments and all formalities were fulfilled, the petitioner would be issued a passport. The writ petition was allowed on these terms, with no costs imposed.