Subhashan Reddy, C.J.

At issue, is the power of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to order impounding of Passport of the defendant facing the claim for recovery of debt by the Bank/Financial institution?

2. The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short “the DRT”) in ordering impounding of her passport. Other persons against whom such impounding has been made are not parties before this Court, and, as such, we need to confine the adjudication only in respect of the appellant.

3. Mr. C. Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel, submits that when a question of law has been raised before the learned Single Judge regarding the power and jurisdiction of the DRT in ordering impounding of passport, the learned Single Judge ought to have decided the same instead of relegating the appellant to the DRT.

4. The appellant, along with others, raised loans from the second respondent-Bank in connection with her business of partnership firm of which she is the Managing Partner. Admittedly, the business concern of the appellant is not running well, and, there are huge debts and the second respondent’s case is that the debts outweigh the securities offered, and, in effect, the second respondent specifically pleads that the securities so offered can satisfy only a fraction of the claim totaling to 30 crores and that the appellant, her husband and other family members, who are the debtors are planning to flee the country, and, as there was a need to prevent that, they filed applications impounding the passports and that the DRT has rightly responded.

5. Mr. Unnikrishnan the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”) and the Rules framed thereunder nowhere empower the DRT to impound the passport and Section 10 of the Passports Act is not applicable for cases like the instant one, and, submits that the order of the DRT grossly infringes the valuable and the cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and, heavily relies upon the judgment rendered by the Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India A.I.R. 1978 SC 597(1) and ICICI Ltd. Passport Officer, Bangalore, AIR 2002 Karnataka 118(2).

6. Mr. P.S. George, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Bank submits that there is no infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the impugned order passed by the DRT is traceable to the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India grants fundamental right to all persons that they shall not be deprived of their life and liberty, save, by authority of law. We are now concerned with the liberty part. There is a fundamental right to free movement, but reasonable restrictions can be placed. The Passports Act, 1967 is one such Act requiring the passport to be taken for traveling abroad. Conditions for granting of passport as also variation of the conditions, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents are also provided in Passports Act, 1967. Section 10(4) of the Act states that if it is brought to the notice of the Passport Authority that a warrant or summons for appearance or a warrant for the arrest of the holder of the 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 the holder of the 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 made, it may impound, or, cause to be impounded, or, revoke a passport or a travel document. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the DRT cannot fit into any of these conditions stated in Section 10(h) of the Passports Act, 1967, and, as such, the passport cannot be ordered to