Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AMRITA SINHA, J.
Rahul Saraff – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 14280 of 2019
Decided On : 23-08-2024
Passport - Impounding - Passports Act, 1967 - Sections 10(3)(b), 10(3)(e), 12(1)(b) - The court interpreted the provisions allowing passport impounding for non-disclosure of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and the discretionary nature of the authority's powers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the impounding of his passport by the Assistant Passport Officer, which was based on non-disclosure of a pending criminal case during passport renewal. The petitioner argued that the action was taken prematurely and without proper reasoning.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to explain his actions before impounding the passport, thus violating principles of natural justice. The impounding order was set aside.
Issues: Whether the impounding of the petitioner's passport was justified under the Passports Act and whether the authority violated principles of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner to respond before the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority must exercise discretion in impounding passports and provide a fair hearing, especially when the criminal case is pending for an extended period without resolution.
Result: The impounding order was set aside, and the passport authority was directed to grant a hearing to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
AMRITA SINHA, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9th October, 2018 passed by the Assistant Passport Officer impounding his passport under Section 10(3)(b) & (e) of the Passports Act, 1967, herein after referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3. After renewal of the passport police verification report was received, which revealed pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. On receipt of the adverse police report a clarification was sought from the petitioner to submit explanation regarding the circumstances under which he suppressed the material information in his passport application and obtained the said passport. The petitioner was directed to state why action should not be taken against him for impounding the passport under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act.
4. On receipt of the adverse police verification report a show cause notice dated 10th September, 2018 was issued to the petitioner which was duly replied by him on 13th September, 2018. Vide communication dated 17th September, 2018 the petitioner was directed to appear for a personal hearing on 25th September, 2018.
5. By a communication dated 3rd October, 2018, the authority imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand only) for not disclosing proper information at the time of applying for renewal of the passport. Fourteen days’ time was given to the petitioner for filing his show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for submitting incorrect information for renewal of the passport.
6. The petitioner duly paid the penalty amount of Rs. 5,000/-on 3rd October, 2018. Vide communication dated 9th October, 2018 the petitioner was intimated that the authority decided to impound his passport under Section 10(3)(b) & (e) of the Act on the ground of non-disclosure of pendency of a criminal case against him. The petitioner was requested to submit the passport in the office immediately. He is aggrieved by the same.
Submissions of the petitioner:
7. The petitioner submits that the action to impound the passport is illegal and erroneous. The petitioner was given fourteen days’ time to submit representation as to why action should not be taken against him, but prior to the expiry of the said time limit, the authority in a hasty manner passed the order for impounding the passport.
8. On the day the application for renewal was filed by the petitioner there was no criminal charge against him. The petitioner did not provide any wrong or false information at the time of renewal of the passport.
9. It has been contended that the authority ought not to refuse renewal of the passport if the activity of the petitioner is not prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. There is no reason detrimental to the security of India and the presence of the petitioner is not likely to prejudice the friendly relation of India with any foreign country if his passport is renewed.
10. The criminal case that is pending against the petitioner arises out of a family dispute and though the case commenced in the year 2012 but till date there has not been any substantial progress. There is no likelihood of the said case to go for trial in the immediate future and it may take a considerable period of time for the said criminal proceeding to get over.
11. It has been submitted that the petitioner intends to go abroad for obtaining medical treatment and he is willing and agreeable to follow the reasonable restrictions that may be
The court established that the impounding of a passport requires adherence to principles of natural justice and that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically justify such action.
The right to renew a passport and travel abroad is protected under Article 21, requiring judicial discretion to be applied, ensuring it is not curtailed arbitrarily while considering ongoing criminal....
The denial of passport renewal based solely on pending cases without affording a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice and the right to livelihood under Article 21.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
