.1. The Writ Petition is for the issue of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Government of India communicated by the fourth respondent in his proceedings dated 5. 1996 impounding petitioner’s passport and to direct the respondents to return the petitioner’s passport V-475478 issued at Madras on 20.10.1995. The petitioner is a Indian citizen and earlier he had been issued a passport K-870249, issued at Hong Kong on 24. 1992. That passport was valid up to 22. 2002. According to the petitioner he had lost his passport and therefore, he had applied for a new passport before the Passport Officer, Madras, on 6. 1995. Since the petitioner’s Hongkong residential visa was to expire in the first week of November, 1995 he sought for urgent orders on the request for a new passport. It is under these circumstances that the subject passport V-475478 was issued on 20.10.1995 valid up to 110. 1996. Under the strength of this passport the petitioner travelled to Hongkong to attend to his busi ness activities. He sought for extension of the validity of the passport by making an application to the fourth respondent. In the meanwhile, the Enforcement Director had issued a summons dated 11. 1996 seeking appearance of the petitioner at the office of the Enforcement Directorate on 21. 1996. This summons related to the investigation in connection with a Hawala case involving an amount of Rs.40 crores. Therefore, on 1-5-1996 the fourth respondent was informed that the petitioner had failed to appear on 21. 1996 and therefore, it was necessary to impound the passport of the petitioner under Sec. 10 (3) (h) of Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Accordingly, the fourth respondent informed the petitioner by his order dated 5. 1996 that the petitioner’s passport had been impounded. The petitioner was also informed that he had a right of appeal to the Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. In the same order the petitioner was informed that an Emergency Certificate could be issued to the petitioner to enable him to travel back to India. On 5. 1996 the petitioner addressed an appeal to the Chief Passport Officer. In his appeal he contended that the Passport cannot be impounded under Sec. 10 (3) (h) of the Act and that no opportunity had been given to him before passing the impugned order.

.2. According to the petitioner he again received a summons dated 15. 1996 asking him to appear before the Enforcement Directorate on 30.5.1996. The petitioner sent a reply on 1-6-1996. In his affidavit the petitioner says that the appeal filed by him is still pending and he had been prevented from coming back to India since his passport had been impounded. Before narrating the subsequent facts it has to be pointed out that the petitioner has clearly sworn to incorrect and misleading statements. The petitioner was fully aware that in the letter dated 5. 1996 an emergency certificate was offered to enable him to travel back to India. What is more, there is material to show that on 5. 1996 the petitioner had met the fourth respondent and he had been told about the investigation in the Hawala case and that it is only because of the non-appearance in spite of the receipt of the summons that the passport was being impounded. It was also explained to him the scope of the emergency certificate and how he could travel back to India without any difficulty. Therefore, it was certainly not proper on the part of the petitioner to say that he was prevented from coming to India, as stated in his affidavit, sworn to on 16. 1996. The petitioner then proceeds to question the correctness of the order dated 5. 1996 on various grounds to which I will make a reference later.

3. To complete the narration of facts, as seen from the counter-affidavit of the respondents as well as the records produced before me, I find that a third summons was issued on 6. 1996 asking the petitioner to appear on 26. 1996. So far as the