(SWATANTER KUMAR,C.J):- Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

1. The petitioner, an Indian citizen, residing at Lokhandwala Complex, Swami Samarth Nagar, Andheri(West) Mumbai 400058, has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the action of the respondents in withholding his passport No E5934818 issued on 24.6.2003 and valid upto 26.6.2013, is arbitrary, contrary to law and is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner claims that he is involved in export of garments and is a frequent flier to Dubai-Europe and other parts of the world and carries on business in the name and style of Sushilas at Linking Road, Bandra, Mumbai. The petitioner lost his earlier passport being No.484378 dated 22.3.1993 valid upto 21.3.2003. Upon acquiring knowledge of lost of his passport, the petitioner registered a complaint at Khar police station in this regard. The first information report bearing No.632102 dated 11.3.2002 was registered with the said police station.

Thereafter the petitioner applied for fresh passport giving complete details of previous passport issued to him.

3. Respondent no.3 informed the petitioner that they had received information from external affair ministry that his previous passport was deliberately lost so that someone else can unauthorisedly take benefit or use the said passport. The said passport of the petitioner was thus withheld nearly for a period of 2 years. The petitioner aggrieved by this action raised protest by writing letters and by making representations to the authorities. The said passport was again returned to him in August 2006 with endorsement on 18.3.2005. Again on 29.12.2005 the petitioner received a letter from respondent no.3 asking him to supply the copy of FIR lodged by him at the police station, which the petitioner supplied to them without any delay. Copy of the said letter annexed to the petition as Exhibit C. The status report in furtherance to the FIR was also submitted by the petitioner on 1.5.206 as given by the concerned police station which is at Exhibit D to the petition.

Vide letter dated 28.8.2006, respondent no.3 called upon the petitioner to deposit his passport in compliance with the provisions of section 10(1) of the Passport Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In response to the said letter Exhibit F, the petitioner on 7.9.2006 surrendered his passport as directed. The passport was not returned to the petitioner in spite of his repeated requests. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 22.9.2006 informed the petitioner that his request for return of passport cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the case in relation to the FIR 209 of 2002 was pending in court. The relevant portion of the said letter Exhibit H to the petition reads as under: “Please refer to your application dated 9.3.2005 and your letter dated 7.9.2006 for grant of ECNR service on your passport No.3 934818 dated 24.6.2003.

It is informed to our Ministry by the Dy Commissioner of Police IGI Airport New Delhi regarding not to grant service to you as the case is under trial in the court of ACMM, Patiala House, New Delhi in FIR No.209/2002”.

Even thereafter the petitioner made various attempts to resolve this issue but his request to the department for return of passport were of no consequence, resulting in filing of the present petition.

4. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents is violative of section 10(1) of the Act as well as infringes the freedom available to the petitioner under Articles 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The direction for forfeiting his passport is illegal, and is even against the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. In fact according to the petitioner, respondents have not given reasons much less sufficient cause to retain his passport.

5. The respondents filed their short reply justifying their action opposing grant of relief prayed for by the petitioner.

According to them the pa