The main legal point established is the importance of correctly citing legal provisions and the requirement for the petitioner to file a fresh representation in accordance with the law.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition was initially filed by the petitioner seeking return of his Passport No. A-3448836 which had been impounded by the respondents. Subsequently, an amended writ petition was filed wherein the additional prayer of quashing of the order dated 21. 08. 2006 passed by the Section Officer, ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi was sought. The impugned order dated 21. 08. 2006 has reference to the petitioner's representation dated 20. 02. 2006 for release of the seized passport. A copy of the representation is already on record as it was annexed alongwith the original writ petition. From the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner's passport facilities had been refused under Section 6 (2) (i) of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' ). The reasons given for such refusal read as under:-

"1]. Making a false statement about loss of passport No. A-3448836 issued on 22. 7. 1997 by PO, Jalandhar before the Embassy of India, Jakarta to obtain a travel document (Emergency Certificate) with malafide intentions; 2]. Holding two travel documents concurrently (Emergency Certificate no. 653726 dated 28. 12. 1998 and Passport No. A-3448836 dated 22. 7. 1997. 3]. Suppression of the fact that traveled to India on 30. 12. 1998 on emergency Certificate. 4]. Your inability to disclose details of travel document used for travel to Germany. "

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the impugned order dated 21. 08. 2006, straightway pointed out that the provisions of Section 6 (2) (i) of the said Act were clearly inapplicable inasmuch as this was not a case of refusal of the passport or travel documents. The petitioner already possessed a passport which had been impounded.

( 3 ) IN response to this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that a wrong Section has been mentioned and that, in fact, the passport of the petitioner was impounded under the provisions of section 10 (3) (b) of the said Act. This provision specifically authorises a passport authority to impound or cause to be impounded or revoke the passport or travel document, if such passport or travel document was obtained by suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the passport or travel document or any other person on his behalf. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no suppression of any material information on the part of the petitioner which resulted in the issuance of the passport or the travel document. The case as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 22. 07. 1997, the petitioner was issued the aforesaid passport by the Jalandhar Regional Passports Office and the said passport was valid upto 21. 07. 2007. It is stated that in 1998, the petitioner, after obtaining a valid visa to travel to Indonesia, went to Indonesia. During his stay in Indonesia, he misplaced his passport. A complaint was registered for loss of his passport. Although it is stated by the counsel for the respondents that upon the lodgment of such report, the petitioner was issued an emergency certificate for return to India, the learned counsel for the petitioner refutes this statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner travelled without any passport or emergency certificate from Indonesia to Germany in 1999 and that he was given political asylum in Germany. It is further submitted that on 26. 08. 2005 the petitioner married a German national, namely, Ms Domling Birgit Charlotti and that on 26. 09. 2005, the petitioner, who had, in the meanwhile, found his passport, was granted a German visa valid upto 01. 10. 2006 and the same had been affixed on that passport. It is further contended that the petitioner came to India on 09. 12. 2005 alongwith his German wife. On 25. 01. 2006, when the petitioner was returning to Germany with his wife, he was restrained and his