Annie John, J.

1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 716 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed for damages. It is alleged that the respondent has collected the passport and driving licence of the petitioner and produced the same along with the suit. The respondent could not arrange the visa in time and hence the petitioner could not go abroad. Finally, the respondent demanded exorbitant amount for arranging visa. But the petitioner did not accede to that. Hence he has filed the suit for damages.

2. The First Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 09.08.2007 dismissed the suit. Even though the petitioner requested the respondent to return the passport, he has not acceded to the request.

3. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 575 of 2010 before the Second Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam for a mandatory injunction to get the petitioner's passport from the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent preferred A.S. No. 248 of 2010 against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 716 of 2006 along with I.A. No. 4483 of 2010 for condonation of delay of three years. The Munsiff Court, as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 29.07.2011 rejected the prayer to return the passport because of the pendency of A.S. No. 248 of 2010. Thereafter, the District Judge, Ernakulam as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 16.11.2011 dismissed A.S. No. 248 of 2010 in lieu of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has no right or authority to retain the passport belongs to the petitioner. Since there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to get back the document produced by the plaintiff in a proceedings, he filed this original petition seeking a direction to the Munsiff's Court to return the passport. It is further argued that keeping of the passport by the respondent is purely in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner.

5. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, it has turned out that the passport of the petitioner came into the possession of the respondent as a promise to procure employment visa. Subsequently, the respondent initiated civil proceedings to get damages for the non-payment of visa charges and produced the passport before the Munsiff's Court. Now the entire dispute was finalised after the disposal of the appeal, it is up to the respondent to return the passport to the petitioner by getting it back from the Court.

6. The law on the subject is governed by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 3 of the Passport Act clearly lays down that no person shall depart from this country unless he holds in this behalf a valid passport or travel document. As far as a person holds a valid passport and the validity of which extends to a certain date, he is entitled to travel abroad. Section 2(c) of the Passport Act defines the passport authority thus:

“Passport authority means an officer or authority empowered under rules made under this Act to issue passports or travel documents and includes the Central Government.”

7. In Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 1978 SC 597, it is held that the expression personal liberty in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19. No person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. If a law depriving a person of personal liberty and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under