Back
High Court of Delhi
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ.
Lalit Kumar Modi
Versus
Union of India & Others
LPA No. 134 of 2013 & CM Nos. 3837-38 of 2013
Decided on: 27-08-2014
The Court held that the revocation of the appellant's passport was invalid as it violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution. The Court also held that the revocation order was not in the interests of the general public as it was based on extraneous considerations and irrelevant materials.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Lalit Kumar Modi, was the former Chairman and Commissioner of the Indian Premier League (IPL). He was investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for alleged contraventions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). The ED issued summonses to the appellant to appear before it and produce documents. The appellant did not appear before the ED on the dates specified in the summonses. The ED then filed a complaint against the appellant under Section 16(3) of FEMA. The Regional Passport Office, Mumbai, issued a show cause notice to the appellant asking him to explain why his passport should not be revoked under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967. The appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice. The Regional Passport Officer revoked the appellant's passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act. The appellant appealed to the Chief Passport Officer, who upheld the revocation order. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the revocation order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the revocation of the appellant's passport was invalid as it violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution. The Court also held that the revocation order was not in the interests of the general public as it was based on extraneous considerations and irrelevant materials.
Issues: Whether the revocation of the appellant's passport was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the revocation of the appellant's passport was invalid as it violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution. The Court also held that the revocation order was not in the interests of the general public as it was based on extraneous considerations and irrelevant materials. The Court observed that the direct and inevitable consequence of the revocation order was to impinge upon the appellant's freedom of speech and expression. The Court held that this could be legitimate if the revocation order could be said to be in the interests of the general public, of course, limited to the interests of 'public order, decency or morality'. The Court held that the alleged infraction on the part of the appellant could hardly be stated to fall foul of 'public order, decency or morality'. Therefore, the Court held that the revocation order was invalid.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As a result, the revocation of the appellant's passport was set aside and the passport was restored.
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J:
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgement dated 16.01.2013 delivered by a learned single Judge of this court in W.P.(C) 376/2012 whereby the said writ petition was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the appellant/ petitioner had inter alia sought a writ of Certiorari for quashing and / or setting aside the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Chief Passport Officer) and the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Regional Passport Officer).
2. The order dated 03.03.2011 which had been passed by the Regional Passport Officer was one whereby the passport of the appellant was revoked. The order dated 31.10.2011 was passed by the respondent No. 2 (Chief Passport Officer) in an appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Passports Act‘) which had been preferred by the appellant from the revocation order passed by the respondent No. 3 on 03.03.2011. By virtue of the order dated 31.10.2011, the appellant‘s appeal was rejected by the respondent No. 2.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal need to be set out. An investigation was being conducted against inter alia the appellant under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FEMA‘). In connection with the said investigation a summons had been issued to the appellant by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, in purported exercise of his powers under Section 37(1) and 37(3) of FEMA read with Section 131(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said summons was as under:-
“Government of India
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Tel: 22886182 23-24, 2nd floor, Mittal Chambers,
Fax: 22828930 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021
T-3/81-B/2008/AD(DKS)/4137
SUMMONS
To appear in person
{REFER SECTION 37(1) AND (3) OF THE FOREIGN
EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999, READ WITH
SECTION 13(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND
SECTION 30 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908}
To,
Shri Lalit Kumar Modi
3rd Floor, Nirlon House,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli,
Mumbai
WHEREAS, an investigation is being conducted against you under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).
AND WHEREAS in connection with the said investigation, you are hereby summoned to appear before me in person on 10.08.2010 at 11.00 Hrs to tender evidence in respect of various agreements executed by the BCCI-IPL, alongwith the documents listed in the Schedule below.
SCHEDULE
1. Passport in original for verification.
2. Details of all bank accounts in India and abroad.
3. Copies of all Invitations to Tender (ITT) floated by the BCCI in connection with IPL.
4. Copies of all Agreements executed by the BCCI in connection with IPL.
5. Copies of all minutes and attendance sheets of the IPL Governing Council meetings.
6. Copies of all e-mails/communications exchanged in connection with auction of Franchises in 2008 & 2010 sale of commercial & Media Rights and IPL-2
Take notice that, in default of your appearance on the day mentioned here-in-before, you shall be liable to action under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and/or Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Given under my hand and the seal on this 2nd August 2010.
Sd/-
(D.K. Sinha)
Assistant Director”
4. In response to the said summons dated 02.08.2010 the appellant sent a reply on 07.08.2010 to the following effect:-
“Lalit Kumar Modi
Chairman & Commissioner
(Suspended)
NIRLON HOUSE
DR. ANNIE BESANT
ROAD
WORLI, MUMBAI – 400030
PHONE: 91-022-66637373
FAX : 91-022-24932260
7th August 2010
To,
The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement,
23-24, 2nd Floor, Mittal Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbal – 21.
For the attention of Mr. D.K. Sinha, Asst Director.
Subject : Reply to your Summons
Ref: - Your Summons dated 2nd August 2010: Ref
No. T-3/81-B/2008/AD(DKS)
Dear Sir,
1. I am in receipt of your above-mentioned Summons. In compliance thereof, I wish to sta
AI
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
