IMPORTANT POINT
Passport cannot be seized without sufficient cause.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5.

2. The respondents 6 to 10 in the present writ petition have been given up by the petitioner and an endorsement has also been made to that effect, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The main contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, has passed an interim order, dated 27.12.2013, in I.A.Nos.600, 601 and 602 of 2013, which reads as follows:

“(i) IA-600/2013: Respondents 2, 3 and 5/Defendants 2, 3 and 5 are directed not to leave India without the permission of this Tribunal, pending disposal of OA-254/2013.

Respondents 2, 3 and 5/Defendants 2, 3 and 5 are directed to surrender their Indian Passports to the Registrar of this Tribunal, on or before 30.1.2014.”

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the 5th respondent in I.A.No.600 of 2013, has stated that the petitioner is an eminent carnatic vocalist, who has been performing music concerts in many foreign countries and certain enquiries have been made from Malaysia, with regard to the music concerts to be performed in the said country. Therefore, she is likely to travel to Malaysia in the first week of March, 2014. In such circumstances, the interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in I.A.Nos.600, 601 and 602 of 2013, asking her to surrender her Indian passport to the Registrar of the Tribunal and not to leave India, without the permission of the Tribunal, is arbitrary and illegal.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that there is no legal sanctity for the interim order passed by the Tribunal, especially, in view of the fact that no such prayer had been made by the applicant, in I.A.No.600 of 2013, for the Tribunal to issue such directions. He had further submitted that no proper reasons have been given by the Tribunal to pass the impugned order.

6. It has also been stated that the petitioner has not borrowed any money. She had only pledged the share certificates of Gemini Communication Limited, Alwarpet, for the loan borrowed by Point Red Telecom Limited, Bangalore. Therefore, there is no penal liability on the part of the petitioner to discharge the loan amount, said to have been borrowed by Point Red Telecom Limited, Bangalore.

7. The petitioner had also filed an affidavit, dated 6.2.2014. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the said affidavit read as follows:

“7. Further, My sister and I frequently travel abroad to perform Carnatic music concerts. We have completed performance tours of the United States of America, Malaysia and Singapore. We have also performed in the music series organised by Kamban Kazhagam in Colombo, Sri Lanka. We have recently completed performances in most of the prestigious Sabhas of Chennai during the December Music Festival and have received favourable reviews and many enquiries from abroad to schedule concerts in numerous countries having a large NRI presence. I submit that the impugned ex parte order would cause irreparable damage and injury to my career and reputation in the Carnatic music circle. If my passport would stand impounded by the 1st respondent and I am restrained from travelling outside the country, I would not be able to make any commitments for concerts outside the country and be unable to commit to any of the numerous enquiries I have received.

8. I submit that I have already received a very promising enquiry from Malaysia and I am likely to travel there to perform on the 1st of March, 2014. To proceed to confirm the performance, I need to confirm that I have valid travel documents and that I am available to travel. I already currently hold a valid Malaysian Visa that enables me to travel to Malaysia for the purpose of performances and my sister and I are keen to perform in Malaysia on the