9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 accepta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in C.C.No .07 of 2012 on 31.10.2012 by the learned Special Judge, CBI at Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. Pending trial, the petitioner was also granted bail on 22.01.2013 on furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/-. According to the petitioner, there was no condition imposed for grant of bail, particularly there was no travel restrictions imposed on him. The petitioner has been cooperative for the trial. However, the same was pending since 2012. In the mean while, the petitioner has been travelling abroad on multiple occasions and there were no complaint whatsoever against him regarding his cooperation for trial pending before the CBI Court, New Delhi. 3. While matter stood thus, the competent authority has issued a general show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the 1st and 5th respondent impounding the passport and confirming of the same are impugned in the present proceedings. 5. On notice, Mrs. S. Srimathy, the learned counsel appeared for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and a counter affidavit has also been filed. 6. Shri. N.R. Elango, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there has been no proper application of mind on the part of the 1st and 5th respondents in passing orders impounding the passport and confirming the same in appeal. The learned senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 18.11.2016. It appears from the order passed by the 1st respondent that there was no proper consideration of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner may approach the Court concerned where the case is pending for getting necessary permission for travelling abroad. According to the learned Senior Counsel, such a contingency does not arise in view of the fact that the petitioner has been out on bail for several years and no conditions were imposed by the Criminal court, particularly restricting his travel plan or any order passed by the Criminal Court for surrendering of passport. In such view of the matter, the question of approaching the criminal Court does not arise. Moreover, the learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 particularly to sub-Section 7 of Section 7 and submitted that the contingency for approaching the Crim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to travel abroad it is always open to him to obtain necessary permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the orders passed by the first and fifth respondents and therefore, urged this Court to dismiss this writ petition as devoid of merits and substance. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and perused the materials and pleadings available on record. 11. The orders passed by the 1st and 5th respondents prima-facie disclose improper consideration on their part as to the representation and the appeal submitted by the petitioners. It appears from the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the passport without any legally acceptable reason and without any independent application of mind cannot be sustained. Further, the appellate authority who sit in appeal against the order passed by the original authority also seems to have not appreciated the independent responsibility in adjudicating the appeal and merely guided by the CBI instructions. In the said circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the 1st and 5th respondents cannot be legally sustained. 12. In view of the above conclusion, the impugned order passed by the 5th Respondent in File No: VIII/402/App-99/2016 dated 06.02.2017 and the order passed by 1st Respondent in file No.1600553_POL_MDU dated 18.11.2016 are set aside. The mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
