IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
GITA MITTAL
Aditya Khanna - Appellant
Versus
Regional Passport Officer/Passport Authority - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9519/2007
Decided On : 19-12-2008
The petitioner challenged the revocation of his passport by the respondents without issuance of a notice to show cause and grant of an opportunity of representation against the proposed action. The petitioner was a non-resident Indian and was not an accused in any criminal proceedings. The allegations made in the Volcker inquiry report were pending adjudication and, therefore, were yet to be decided by process of law and adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's passport was revoked by the respondents without issuance of a notice to show cause and grant of an opportunity of representation against the proposed action. The petitioner was a non-resident Indian and was not an accused in any criminal proceedings. The allegations made in the Volcker inquiry report were pending adjudication and, therefore, were yet to be decided by process of law and adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revocation of the petitioner's passport was in violation of the principles of natural justice and was therefore void and non est. The court also held that the Central Bureau of Investigation had no authority to detain the passport in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Suresh Nanda vs. CBI (supra).
Issues: Whether the revocation of the petitioner's passport was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revocation of the petitioner's passport was in violation of the principles of natural justice and was therefore void and non est. The court also held that the Central Bureau of Investigation had no authority to detain the passport in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Suresh Nanda vs. CBI (supra).
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to release the passport to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of the judgment. The court also made it clear that the judgment would not preclude the designated authority under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 from making an appropriate order in accordance with law on a request made by any authority or pending with it.
1. This writ petition has been filed by Aditya Khanna assailing the action of the respondents in revoking his passport bearing no. F 4812183 without issuance of a notice to show cause and grant of an opportunity to represent against the proposed action. The action is assailed also on the ground of malafide and that no order has been communicated to him till date.
2. Certain public allegations into the administration and management of the United Nation Oil for Food Programme in Iraq were made. As a result, the United Nations Security Council appointed an independent high level inquiry headed by Mr. Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve to look into the administration and management of the programme in Iraq. On 27th October, 2005 the Volcker Committee submitted its fifth and final substantiative report setting out the manner in which Iraq had manipulated the programme to dispense contracts on the basis of political preference and to derive illicit payments from companies that obtained oil and humanitarian aid contracts. It appears that the Volcker Committee report contained a reference to transactions involving one Shri Andleeb Sehgal and his company Masefield AG, Switzerland. The report was accompanied with a set of eight comprehensive tables identifying contractors under the programme and actors of significance to the programme transactions (including non-contractual beneficiaries of Iraqi oil allocations) and parties that financed the oil transactions. The Government of India was concerned with allegations set out in table 3 and 5 of the report which contained details of payments made in contract nos. M/09/54 and M/10/57 and the beneficiaries thereof referred to an Indian political party and a senior member thereof.
3. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General contends that these allegations were treated by the government as being of extremely serious concern and consequently, by a notification dated 11th November, 2005 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, of the Government of India, it was resolved to set up a single member inquiry under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 whereby Justice R.S. Pathak, former Chief Justice of India and former Judge of the International Court of Justice was appointed as the authority to go into the root of the matter.
4. In addition, investigations were initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement-respondent no.3 herein in November, 2005 into allegations of violations of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA for short) arising out of these transactions. The learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that the investigations which were being conducted by the respondents were of an extremely serious nature and the charges which were being examined involved only matters of public importance.
5. The respondent no. 3 Directorate of Enforcement has submitted before this court that during the course of investigations, there was sufficient material indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the financial transactions arising out of the said two oil contracts and therefore it became necessary to examine the petitioner vis-a -vis his role in the allocation of oil by the Iraqi authorities to M/s Hamdaan Exports/Sh. Andaleeb Sehgal under the two contracts; payment of surcharge to an Iraqi designated account and sharing of commission earned out of execution of the above between the petitioner and other beneficiaries. For this reason, summons were issued under Section 37 (3) of FEMA read with Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, requiring the petitioner to appear before the directorate on 25th November, 2005 and to produce his passport as well as the details of his bank account in India and abroad.
6. As the petitioner failed to appear and also did not produce the required document or their copies or information, on 29th November, 2005, an alert for his appearance was issued.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.