The impounding of a passport without affording the holder an opportunity of hearing violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order/intimation dated 19.7.2018 (Annexure P-1 Colly) vide which the petitioner was intimated that his passport No. K2793805 had been impounded and the order dated 12.3.2020 (Annexure P-6) vide which the passport of the petitioner was seized.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that passport No. K2793805 was duly issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh. On 16.11.2012, the petitioner went to New Zealand on a student visa which was extended by the Indian Consulate at New Zealand on 23.9.2014. The petitioner was granted Permanent Resident visa of New Zealand on 15.12.2016. While he was still in New Zealand, FIR No. 596 dated 22.10.2013 under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad, had been got registered by Suman i.e. wife of the petitioner against the petitioner, his parents and brother. Vide order dated 06.5.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, the petitioner, who had then been in New Zealand, was declared a proclaimed offender, without adopting the proper procedure. The petitioner challenged the said proclamation order in this Court and vide order dated 04.3.2020 (Annexure P-5), the arrest of the petitioner was stayed for 08 weeks, so that on arrival from New Zealand, he could move an application for setting aside the proclamation order and for grant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner came to India on 12.3.2020 and his passport was seized on the same day vide seizure memo dated 12.3.2020 (Annexure P-6). It is further argued that when the petitioner was in New Zealand, Regional Passport Office-respondent No. 3 had issued a letter dated 19.7.2018 (Annexure P-1) at his local address alleging that he had obtained the passport by suppressing/providing wrong information and he was directed to submit the passport in the office. The petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 12.9.2018 clarifying that neither any information had ever been suppressed nor any wrong information had been given but despite that his passport was impounded. Since no information had been suppressed by the petitioner at the time of issuance of passport, impounding of the passport is violative of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as Right to Life means Right to Live.

4. Still further, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the intimation regarding impounding of passport and show cause notice was issued on the same date i.e. 19.7.2018, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order violates the very Fundamental Rights of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan versus State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645 .

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in ' Kamal Kumar Narottam Dash Parekh versus Superintendent (Administration), Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs and others, (2009) 19 RCR(Civ) 813 . Relevant extracts from the said judgment would read as under:-

"33. The question as to whether a passport ought to be impounded or not is required to be considered by the passport authority. The mere fact that certain conditions specified in Section 10(3) of the Act on the basis of which a passport can be impounded subsists in a given case cannot by itself result in impounding of a passport automatically.

34 xxxxxx............The impugned order was passed without compliance with the principles of natural justice, and the order also suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. It would be for the passport authorities to decide whether there is any further ground for impounding the passport and if accordin