The court held that the RPO and CPO had acted within their jurisdiction in revoking the petitioner's passport and that the revocation was in the interest of the general public. The court also held that the authorities had not violated the principles of natural justice.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

1. The challenge in the captioned writ petition has been laid to the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by the Regional Passport Officer i.e., Respondent no.3 (hereinafter referred to as the RPO) and the order-in-appeal dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Chief Passport Officer (hereinafter referred to as the CPO).

2. The order-in-original, referred to above, which is passed by the RPO, is based on a communication received by his office from the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai (in short DOE) vide letter dated 04.10.2010 stating therein that a complaint had been filed under section 16(3) of: The Foreign Exchange and Management Act, 1999 (in short FEMA) against the petitioner in view of his failure to comply with the summons issued under section 37, on 02.08.2010 and 24.08.2010, qua proceedings proposed to be taken out against him under section 13 of the FEMA. This communication apparently, also informed the RPO, that notice on the said complaint had been issued on 20.09.2010.

3. The petitioner has challenged, the aforementioned impugned orders, on various grounds, which I will refer to and deal with in the latter part of my judgment. For the moment, it may be relevant to refer to the material and relevant facts which have led to the institution of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. As indicated above, on 02.08.2010 summons were issued under section 37 of the FEMA, to the petitioner, in respect of investigations being carried out against him for violation of the provisions of FEMA. The petitioner was required to appear before the Assistant Director, on 10.08.2010. It appears that on 08.08.2010, a letter was received through the petitioner’s General Counsel and Constituted Attorney, that the petitioner had not made himself available before the concerned officer, due to security concerns, which is why, he was stationed outside the country.

5. The concerned officer, apparently not convinced, with the reasons given in the aforementioned communication regarding the petitioner’s apprehension of threat to his life, issued a second communication dated 13.08.2010. By this communication, the petitioner was required to, inter alia, provide evidence of threat to his life, and the details, if any, of complaints he had made to Government authorities in that behalf. The petitioner was also asked to supply names of persons who had advised him to stay outside the country.

5.1 The petitioner by a return communication dated 23.08.2010, evidently indicated that, on 14.10.2009, he had received an Email from an unknown source threatening him with dire consequences. This communication apparently was intercepted by the Mumbai Police, which assessed the same, according to the petitioner, as a threat from the underworld, to liquidate the petitioner. The petitioner thus, claimed that it is because of this threat perception, that he and his family were provided protection by the Mumbai Police.

6. The concerned officer having deliberated upon the material produced by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that, the threat of assassination was made as far back as on 14.10.2009, and thereafter, the petitioner had been organizing and participating in various public and private functions, and therefore, the reason given for not appearing before him, was a ruse to avoid the process of law.

7. Accordingly, fresh summons were issued on 24.08.2010, requiring the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer, on 07.09.2010, to tender evidence and produce documents mentioned in the schedule annexed to the said summons.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner did not appear before the concerned officer, and once again, through his General Counsel and Constituted Attorney gave his reasons for non appearance vide communication dated 07.09.2010. The reasons set out in the said communication were broadly the same, i.e., that he apprehended threat to his life from the underworld and hence had been advised not t