The main legal point established is that the power to impound a passport is vested in the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and neither the police nor the criminal court can impound a passport.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent/Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) to release the passport standing in the name of the petitioner to the petitioner.

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

The facts of the case dates back to 18-11-1999, wherein the petitioner is said to have executed certain agreement of guarantee in favour of various lenders towards loans secured from those lenders. On 20-03-2015, the companies – lenders proceed to initiate O.A.No.711 of 2015 before the Tribunal inter alia seeking repayment of sums allegedly in default, attachment and sale of properties of several companies and that of the petitioner. The issue does not concern merit of the claim of the companies or the petitioner before the Tribunal.

3. An application comes to be filed by those Banks who had initiated proceedings in O.A.No.711 of 2015, in I.A.No.1598 of 2015 invoking Section 22(2)(h) r/w Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for short) to surrender passport of the petitioner and not leave the country without the permission of the Tribunal. The very next day on 16-04-2015, the Tribunal passes an order allowing the application so filed seeking retention of the passport before the Tribunal. The petitioner then files an application seeking vacation of the interim order and the Banks filed their objections in I.A.No.5872/2015. The application seeking vacation of the interim order comes to be rejected. Then, the petitioner on 05-04-2016, surrenders his passport before the Tribunal. The Tribunal then passes an order on 25-07-2016 holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to his passport as and when he requires to travel, subject to production of appropriate travel itinerary. Since then, the petitioner has been filing applications before the Tribunal seeking permission to travel to several countries and on coming back surrendering the passport to the Tribunal. On 02-12-2016, the petitioner files an application seeking release of passport in his favour. The application comes to be rejected. The petitioner claims that he has represented before the Tribunal seeking return of passport on the score that there is urgent necessity of the old passport as its validity had expired and a fresh passport had to be secured from the hands of the Passport Authority. That having not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction as observed hereinabove.

4. Heard Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel along with Sri Bhairav Kuttaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri K.N.Phanindra would vehemently contend that the passport cannot be impounded by the Tribunal as its retention would amount to confiscation or impounding of a passport, this is the power of the Passport Authorities and none else. He would seek a direction to the Tribunal to release the passport surrendered before it on 05-04-2016.

6. This Court directed impleadment of Union of India as party respondent to these proceedings as the Passport Act was to fall for interpretation. Therefore, Union of India is impleaded as the 2nd respondent and Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India is also heard in the matter. He would submit that the power to impound a passport is only under Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and no Court except constitutional Courts can pass any order of retention of a passport.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue in the lis does not concern recovery of debt by the Banks before the Tribuna