Antony Dominic, J.

Petitioner is the holder of passport No. J 2314435 dated 24.11.2010 issued by the second respondent. Ext. P-1 order was issued by the second respondent on 04.02.2011, impounding his passport and the reason stated in the said order reads thus :

"2. Since a criminal case pending trial accused in criminal case and also you have not responded to our show-cause notice issued vide this office letter of even number dated 03.01.2011, it has been decided to impound your passport No. J 2314435 issued on 24.11.2010 by this office, under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 as amended in 1993."

2. Aggrieved by Ext. P-1, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967, petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. In the appeal memorandum, in ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4, petitioner specifically stated thus:

"2. There is no criminal case pending in any Court against the appellant.

3. In the impugned order the details of the case namely the number of the case, the name of the Court etc., are not given.

4. If any report in this regard is obtained by the Passport Officer from the police a copy of the same ought to have been furnished to the appellant. The non-supply of the same vitiates the order as the appellant could not effectively make any representation against the notice."

3. Further, he also stated that there were two cases pending against him before the Family Court, Kottarakkara, which were O.P. Nos. 289/2010 and 501/2010. In this Writ Petition, he has also produced Ext. P-5, the order dated 02.04.2011 of the Family Court, which shows that the proceedings in the aforesaid two O.P.s were settled and were withdrawn.

4. Petitioner submits that the appeal was heard by the first respondent on 01.09.2011. However, orders have not been passed so far. In the meanwhile, on 18.09.2011, when the petitioner landed at the Thiruvananthapuram Airport, his passport was seized and was forwarded to the second respondent. According to the petitioner, he has to join back his employer on 10.11.2011 and as a result of failure of the first respondent in passing orders on his appeal, he is prevented from getting the passport released from the second respondent. It is in these circumstances, the Writ Petition has been filed with the prayers as follows :

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of Ext. P-2 appeal and communicate the copy of the same to the petitioner forthwith to the petitioner and to the second respondent.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to release the passport of the petitioner bearing No. J2314435 forthwith to the petitioner."

5. Taking note of the specific averment in the Writ Petition that the first respondent heard the appeal as early as on 01.09.2011 and that orders have not been passed so far and also taking note of the urgency of the situation as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this Writ Petition came up for admission on 04.11.2011, the case was adjourned and posted to 08.11.2011 with a specific direction to the Standing Counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions as to whether any order has been passed by the first respondent on Ext. P-2 appeal. Instructions were not obtained and, therefore, the case was posted to today. Today also, instructions in that respect are not forthcoming.

6. However, Standing Counsel sought to justify Ext. P1 by contending that the passport in question was issued to the petitioner under a scheme called "Tatkal". It is stated that in the post verification conducted by the police, an adverse report to the effect that at the time when the petitioner applied for passport, cases were pending against him in the Family Court, Kottarakkara was received and that it was because of that report, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.01.2011 to which the petitioner did not submit any reply. It is stated that it was in such circumstances that Ext. P 1 or