The impoundment of passports under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967 requires the recording of reasons and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing to the passport holders. Mere registration of a criminal case does not automatically necessitate impounding the passport, and the impounding authority must consider all relevant facts and circumstances.

V.K. Jain, J. (Oral):-

The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 3885/2013 holds a passport bearing number Z2038840 which came to be seized by the CBI in connection with a criminal case registered vide RC No. BD1/2012/E/0001-BS&FC. Vide show cause notice dated 14.3.2012, the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his passport be not impounded under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967. The petitioner responded to the said notice on 26.3.2012. Vide notice dated 5.9.2012, which the petitioner claims to have received on 10.1.2013, he was asked with reference to some adverse police verification report, to furnish a proper explanation regarding the circumstances in which he had suppressed the material information in his passport application. He was also asked to show cause why action be not taken to impound his passport under section 10(3)(b) and 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967. The petitioner responded to the said notice on 14.1.2013, stating therein that the letter being responded by him was received only on 10.1.2013.

2. The petitioner submitted an application to the Special Judge -- CBI seeking temporary release of his passport on the ground that he required the same for renewal of the passport of his minor son. In its reply to the said application, the CBI stated that it had been informed by the RPO that the said passport has been impounded by it on 14.9.2012. Vide letter dated 7.5.2013, the petitioner requested the RPO to provide him the decision/order to impound the passport, alongwith the communications exchanged in this regard. The Office of RPO, vide letter dated 17.5.2013, informed the petitioner that his passport was impounded on 14.9.2012, on account of adverse recommendations of CBI in connection with a criminal case registered vide RC No. BD1/2012/E/0001-BS&FC. Being aggrieved from impounding of his passport, the petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 14.9.2012 and release of the passport to him.

3. In their reply affidavit, the respondents have stated that the passport of the petitioner was impounded on 14.9.2012 under Section 10(3)(c)&(e) of the Passport Act, 1967, pursuant to the advice of CBI. It is further stated in the affidavit that impounding of the passport was necessitated on account of the petitioner being involved in a criminal case of financial fraud and as many as four FIRs involving hundred crores of rupees had been registered against him. It is further stated that pursuant to the letter dated 14.2.2012 received from CBI, a show cause notice dated 14.3.2012 (wrongly typed as “14.3.2013”) was issued to the petitioner and the grounds for impounding the passport were conveyed to him vide letter dated 17.5.2013.

4. The passport of Mr. P.K. Tewari, petitioner in W.P(C) No. 5153/2013 was also seized on 9.2.2012 in a criminal case registered vide RC No. BD1/2012/E/0001-BS&FC and he was also served with a show cause notice dated 14.3.2012, which was identical to the notice issued to the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 3885/2013. He was also issued the notice dated 5.9.2012 which he claims to have received on 10.1.2013 and he also came to know from the reply filed by the CBI that his passport had been impounded vide Circular dated 14.9.2012. In response to a letter from him, the RPO vide letter dated 28.6.2013 informed him that his passport was impounded on 14.3.2012, on the recommendations of CBI, in connection with the above referred case. Being aggrieved from impounding of his passport, Mr. P.K Tewari is before this Court seeking quashing of the aforesaid order dated 14.9.2012.

5. The passport of Mr. Abhishek Tewari, petitioner in W.P(C) No. 5155/2013, was also seized by the CBI on 7.2.2012. He also was issued a show cause notice dated 14.3.2012, identical to the show cause notice issued to the other two petitioners. He also responded to the show cause notice, which was followed by a communication dated 5.9.2012 which he claimed to have recei