The revocation of a passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 requires the provision of a show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing, and thorough verification of documents is essential before taking such actions.

V.K.Jain, J. (Oral);—

The petitioner before this Court applied to the concerned Regional Passport Office on 22.08.2006 for issue of a passport under the Tatkal Scheme. In the said application form, he gave his address as Village Gudhal, Post Barai, Tehsil Kolaras, District Shiv Puri, M.P. He also submitted a letter from SDM, Badarwas (Kolaras) who certified that the petitioner was residing at the aforesaid place. After issue of passport, the matter was referred to the concerned Police Station for verification of the address and antecedents of the petitioner. On 26.03.2007, it was reported by the Superintendent of Police, Shiv Puri, Madhya Pradesh that the petitioner was not found residing at the given address. However, no other address of the petitioner was reported by the police.

2. The case of the respondent is that a show-cause notice dated 16.04.2007 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to furnish his explanation for suppressing material information in his application. The case of the petitioner, however, is that no such notice was ever received by him. The relevant file has been brought to the Court, but the said show-cause notice is not available in the file. I asked the learned counsel for the respondent as to what was the mode of service of the said notice. However, no proof of service of any such notice is available in the file brought to the Court.

3. Vide order dated 31.12.2012, the passport issued to the petitioner was revoked and he was advised to surrender the said passport to the Passport Office, within 30 days of the receipt of the communication. The aforesaid communication dated 31.12.2012 was sent to the petitioner at the same address which he had given in the application form seeking passport and was duly received by him. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order revoking his passport. The appeal came to be dismissed by the Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer vide order dated 05.09.2013 with the following orders:-

“3. Having gone through all the records and in the light of full facts and circumstances of the case, I decide as under:

i. Decision of the PI to impound the passport of the appellant is in order since by obtaining passport by submitting false information, appellant is guilty of violation of Section 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act.

ii. It has been decided to place the appellant’s name in the Prior Approval Category for a period of one year from the date of issuance of this order.

iii. Thereafter, the appellant may submit a fresh application for passport with the PO, with documentary proof of his address, which will be considered subject to usual checks, procedures and clear Police verification.

iv. The appeal is not allowed.” Aggrieved from the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition.

4. Section 10(3) (b) of the Passport Act, 1967 provides that the Passport Authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoked a passport, if it was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the passport or any other person on his behalf.

5. In the celebrated case Smt.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597, the passport of the petitioner was impounded in the public interest and the Govt. of India declined, ‘in the interests of the general public’ to furnish the reasons in its decision. The reasons, however, were disclosed in the counter affidavit filed in the Supreme Court. She filed a writ petition challenging the Constitution of validity of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act to the extent it authorized the passport authority impounding a passport in the interests of general public, on the ground that the said provision was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, since it conferred vague and undefined power on the passport authority and did not provide for an hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport was impounded.