(Oral) 1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Orders dated 23rd August, 2005 and 30th August, 2005 - passed by the Vice Consul, Consulate General of India New York, USA. This order was passed on the directions of the respondent No.1, namely, the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi for impounding the passport of the petitioner. The other major prayer made in the writ petition challenges the Order dated 21st August, 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No. 89/2003 under Section 406/498A IPC P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi declaring the petitioner as 'Proclaimed Offender'. The petitioner inter alia challenges the vires of the Section 10 (3)(e) & (h) of Passport Act, 1967(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as well as the validity I of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. The Section 10 (3)(e) & (h) of the Act the validity of which is under challenge in this petition reads as follows:.

"10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents.-

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India;

xxxxxx

(h) if it is brought to the notice of the passport authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of he passport or travel document has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of he holder of he passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the passport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made." . In the present case it is not in dispute that at present a complaint vide FIR No. 89/2003 under Section 406/498A IPC is pending against the petitioner and the charge sheet has been filed. The said complaint is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi wherein the petitioner has also been declared as 'Proclaimed Offender' by the order dated 21st August, 2004 impugned in this writ petition. It is also not in dispute that a warrant of arrest emanating from the above complaint exists at present against the petitioner.

4. Mr. Phoolka, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that this action of summoning the petitioner violates the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution because the petitioner is a person who is abroad for gainful employment. The effect of the petitioner's answering the summons would be to disrupt his employment in USA and may militate against the immigrant status sought by him. He submitted that insistence on his presence in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate violates his rights under Article 14; 19 and 21. We are unable to appreciate this plea. A person merely by going abroad cannot claim a status superior to that of a citizen of India. Since any citizen accused in India of a similar offence would also have to obey the summons and appear before the Magistrate, mere stationing of the petitioner in the USA cannot give him any rights superior to those of an Indian citizen. Thus there is no violation of Article 14. Even if the restriction which emanates from the effect 9f the summons by the Magistrate may affect the petitioner's right to movement under Artie 19(1)(d) such restriction certainly falls within Article 19(5) and is a reasonable restriction imposed by a law made by the State. Similarly even if the petitioner's employment guaranteed by Article 19(1)(9) is affected by the impugned order under the Passport Act, such an order has been passed under the Passport Act which imposes a reasonable restriction on the petitioner's right under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Similarly the restrictions complained of in th