The central legal point established is that foreign passports and OCI cards cannot be withheld by entities without jurisdiction, and individuals are entitled to seek mandamus for their return.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents-1, 4 and 5 to hand over original passport and Overseas Citizen of India card (‘OCI’ for short) to the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri I.S.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Aditya Singh, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Nagaraj Damodar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is a citizen of United Kingdom and holds a OCI card for having born in this nation. The British passport comes about after acquiring citizen of United Kingdom and surrendering the passport that was issued to him in this country. The petitioner is one of the Directors of a business venture viz., “VDB Property Ventures Private Limited” a private limited company which is in the business of real estate i.e., purchase of properties and selling them to intending buyers. It is the claim that the Company of the petitioner ventures into an agreement with the purchasers and the Bank which is in the nature of tripartite agreement. The Company claims that it is not involved or has not directly borrowed any loan from the Bank in respect of any property intending to be purchased by the customers of the Company. This is the plea in the petition with regard to the business of the petitioner. The issue in the lis does not concern the claim of businesses or the business venture of the petitioner.

4. A crime comes to be registered against the petitioner and several others pursuant to a complaint registered by the then Vijaya Bank now the Bank of Baroda. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.17 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 418, 420, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner is accused No.6. Certain events took place prior to registration of the complaint. It is the case of the Bank that on 03-10-2018, the petitioner on his own volition appeared before the Bank and gave an undertaking to close the housing loan account of two persons – one Mr. T.Prasad and the other Mr. K.Jagadish which was in the branch. The amount in due by then was Rs.2.90 crores and Rs.2.65 crores respectively in both the accounts. The undertaking was not adhered to. It is, therefore, the crime comes to be registered against the petitioner and several others. The issue in the lis does not concern merit of the crime even.

5. It appears that the Bank directed surrender of passport of the petitioner till he clears the loan. This, according to the petitioner, comes about on 03-10-2018 itself when he was asked to sign the aforesaid documents and forced to hand over original passport and OCI card. The original passport and the OCI card from 03-10-2018 have been in the custody of the Bank. The subject petition was preferred on 4-03-2022. After filing of the petition, this Court directed the Bank to deposit the passport and the OCI card which were with it before this Court. The same is complied with. The issue now is, whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus to the release of passport and the OCI card that was for four years held with the Bank and now before this Court pursuant to an order dated 17-10-2022.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Bank has no right to withhold the passport or the OCI card, as the power of withholding a passport issued by United Kingdom is not even available to the Bank and insofar as OCI card is concerned, it is only the Ministry of External Affairs under the Foreigners Act any action can be taken qua OCI card. Therefore, he would submit that he is entitled to a mandamus at the hands of this Court.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents/Bank would submit that the Bank did not force the petitioner to surrender a