9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are reduced to ₹ 10,000/- from ₹ 1,00,000/-. - L.P.A. No.563 of 2020 in Civil Writ Petition No.25914 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2020 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Mr.Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill and Ms.Ria Khanna, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr.S.P.Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Ms. Gurmeet Kaur Gill, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India. ORDER HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.08.2020 in CWP No.25914 of 2019 titled 'Dalbir Kaur vs. Union of India and others' whereby the writ petition filed by Dalbir Kaur - respondent No.1 herein was allowed with costs and the Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar was directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days. 2. Respondent No.1 Dalbir Kaur, had filed the writ petition praying for quashing the seizure memo dated 23.04.2019 (Annexure P-11), vide which her passport, bearing No.P2208297 issued on 22.12.2016, was impounded, and for quashing the order/communica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, a direction was issued to the passport authorities to furnish a copy of the statement of reasons recorded for impounding the passport within a period of one week. As the reasons were not furnished despite the directions the petitioner sent a a legal notice dated 28.07.2019 (Annexure P-14) to respondent No.6. Thereafter respondent No.6 replied that her passport had been impounded as she had been declared a proclaimed person. 5. The communication is reproduced below: Dated: 17.05.2019 File No.AS1070529889816/POA/CC To Mrs.Dalbir Kaur Madan 23/41, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110001 Subject: Impounding of Passport No.P220829 dated 22.12.2016 Ref: Your grievance dated 13.05.2019 addressed to the Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar Madam With regard to above it is informed that your Passport No.P2208297 dated 22.12.2016 issued from RPO Amritsar has been impounded by this office on 20.03.2019 under section 10(3)(h) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 as applicant has been declared Proclaimed Offender by Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Your grievance mentioned under reference stands disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Passport Officer Amritsar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2018 and furnished the bail bonds, yet the fact remains that criminal proceedings were still pending against her. Therefore, her passport had been impounded/revoked under Section 10(3)(e)(h) of the Act so that she might not leave the country. It was further argued that respondent No.1 had not furnished the order passed by the competent Court in respect of releasing her passport nor the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, was ever supplied to the passport authorities. 8. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that it had filed two criminal complaints against M/s Wazir Singh Enterprises, in which respondent No.1 and her husband Anudeep Singh, were partners. More than ₹ 50 crores was due against M/s Wazir Singh Enterprises. Two cheques, amounting to ₹ 13,33,38,147/- each issued in respect of the repayment of loan on presentation got dishonored. It was further argued that as there was every likelihood that respondent No.1 and her husband might leave the country to avoid paying the outstanding dues towards the bank, the appellant had filed CWP-5843-2019, seeking impounding of the passport of respondent No.1. But a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of any condition even by the Court to surrender the passport, does not arise. Therefore, the principle of audi alteram partem stands violated as the petitioner was granted no notice or opportunity of hearing. By impounding her passport on 23.04.2019, she has been debarred from meeting her children, who are statedly studying in the Universities at Connecticut and Boston, since the very date of impounding of her passport. The action of the respondents is void and illegal being violative of the principles of natural justice as in the absence of prior notice, the order passed by respondent No.5 stands vitiated. Moreover, the power conferred on the passport authority to impound a passport is a quasi judicial and it seriously interferes with the constitutional rights of the holder and entails civil consequences. Even the appeal/ representation filed by the petitioner via e-mail, under Section 11 of the Act, was not considered by respondent No.4-Chief Passport Officer. There are two provisos to sub-section 1 of Section 10-A of the Act, which specifically mandate that every holder of the passport in respect of whom an order of suspension of passport has been passed under clause ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with her husband. He referred to Section 10(3) (e) the Passports Act as per which the passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India 12. Having heard Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Ld. Single as we find no illegality in the same. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
