2017 (4) TMI 1647 - HC - Indian Laws

Impoundment of passport under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967 - violation of valuable rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - It appears from the impugned order that the authorities have been merely guided by the instructions or the report by the Central Bureau of Investigation without independent application of mind in furtherance of discharge of their statutory duty cast upon them under the Indian Passports Act, 1967. It is admitted that the petitioner was released on bail without any condition as averred in the affidavit and no travel restriction has been imposed by the CBI Court. The said fact is very crucial, which has not been taken into consideration either by the first respondent or 5th respondent. More over, no reason has been spelt out in the impugned order that there is any possibility of petitioner fleeing the country escaping from the clutches of law. Such an apprehension on the part of the respondents has not been either explicitly or implicitly found in the order passed by the 1st and 5th respondent. Such being the case, the order passed by the 1st respondent impounding the passport without any legally acceptable reason and without any independent application of mind cannot be sustained. There are no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the 1st and 5th respondents cannot be legally sustained - the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim for restoration of the passport to the petitioner after due consideration of all relevant facts, legal position, other materials that has been placed on record by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks quashment of passport impoundment order under Passport Act, 1967 by 1st and 5th Respondents.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, involved in import-export business, faced criminal charges in 2011 but was granted bail without travel restrictions. Despite cooperation with trial, his passport was sought to be impounded under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967.

2. The petitioner's response to the show cause notice highlighted his bail conditions and global business trips, arguing impounding his passport would violate constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21.

3. The first respondent impounded the passport disregarding the petitioner's legitimate reply, leading to a statutory appeal rejected by the 5th respondent without proper consideration of raised points.

4. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impoundment was solely based on the pending criminal case, ignoring the petitioner's bail status and business activities, thus infringing on fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

5. The respondents justified the impoundment citing a lookout circular by the CBI, claiming it fell under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967, and defending the appellate authority's decision to reject the appeal.

6. The court found that the authorities lacked proper consideration in their orders, merely relying on CBI reports without independent analysis. It noted the petitioner's bail status, cooperation with trial, and absence of flight risk, rendering the impoundment unjustified.

7. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the first respondent for reevaluation, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision considering all relevant facts and legal aspects within four weeks, granting the petitioner a hearing opportunity.

Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing a fresh consideration of the passport restoration request by the first respondent, emphasizing adherence to legal principles and due process.