Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Dalbir Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others - Respondent
CWP No. 25914 of 2019
Decided On : 26-08-2020
Passport - Impounding - Passports Act, 1967, Section 10(3)(h), Section 10(5) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 10(3)(h) and Section 10(5) of the Passports Act, 1967, which require the Passport Authority to record reasons for impounding a passport and furnish those reasons to the passport holder. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of furnishing reasons and the violation of principles of natural justice in impounding the passport without prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The court also highlighted the impact of impounding a passport on the Fundamental Rights of the holder and the need for adherence to statutory provisions and settled law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's passport was impounded without prior information or notice upon her return to India, based on her declaration as a proclaimed person by a court. The petitioner had appeared before the court and was granted bail, but the passport was still impounded. The petitioner sought redressal through legal notices and a writ petition after the passport authorities failed to furnish reasons for impounding the passport.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impounding of the petitioner's passport without prior notice or opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice. The court also noted that the impounding had a significant impact on the petitioner's Fundamental Rights. The court held the impugned orders to be void and illegal, and directed the release of the petitioner's passport, quashing the seizure memo and communication from the passport authorities.
Issues: The issues revolved around the impounding of the petitioner's passport without prior notice or opportunity of hearing, the violation of statutory provisions and settled law, and the impact on the petitioner's Fundamental Rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of furnishing reasons for impounding a passport, the violation of principles of natural justice, and the impact of impounding a passport on the Fundamental Rights of the holder. The court also highlighted the need for adherence to statutory provisions and settled law in such matters.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. The passport authorities were directed to release the petitioner's passport within 15 days from the date of receipt of the court's order. The respondent No.5 was also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner, Dalbir Kaur, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for quashing the seizure memo dated 23.04.2019 (Annexure P-11), vide which her passport, bearing No.P2208297 issued on 22.12.2016, was physically seized/impounded, and for quashing the order/ communication dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure P-14), whereby her representation dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-13) addressed to respondent No. 5 regarding illegal seizure /impounding of her passport, was disposed of without any application of mind by only informing that her passport had been impounded under Section 10(3) (h) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for brevity, 'the Act'), as she had been declared a proclaimed offender by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.
3. The case put up by the petitioner is that her marriage was solemnized with Anudeep Singh on 23.10.1993 where after she shifted to her matrimonial home at Amritsar from New Delhi. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born but due to serious differences with her husband, she shifted back to her parental home at New Delhi in March, 2013 and since then, she has been living there.
4. Now away from her matrimonial home, she was unaware of the business activities of her husband. She was shown one of the partners in the business firm run by her husband, whereas she had virtually no role to play in the affairs of said business. To her utter surprise, she received a letter dated 13.07.2018, sent by respondent No.6, Kotak Mahindra Bank, at her New Delhi address, informing her that she had been declared a proclaimed offender by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. Later, when she came to know regarding the proclamation order dated 14.11.2017, she appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, and was released on bail on 17.12.2018. The petitioner went to Denmark on 18.04.2019 to meet her son, who was visiting there through his school in U.S.A., and came back to India on 23.04.2019. On her return from Denmark, the Indian Immigration Control Department at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, impounded her passport without any prior information or any show-cause notice.
5. When she approached respondent No.4 for redressal of her grievance, she was asked to file a representation/appeal, which she filed via e-mail on 29.04.2019. However, there had been no response to the same. Vide communication dated 17.05.2019, she was informed by respondent No.5 that her passport had been impounded on 20.03.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil), bearing No.5486 of 2019, before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which had been dismissed, vide order dated 20.05.2019 by observing that as bulk of the cause of action arose in the State of Punjab, the writ petition ought to have been filed before this Court. However, a direction was issued to the passport authorities to furnish a copy of the statement of reasons recorded for impounding the passport within a period of one week.
6. Since no statement of reasons was supplied despite the aforesaid directions, a legal notice dated 28.07.2019 (Annexure P-17) was issued to respondent No.5. In response thereto, respondent No.5 informed that the passport of the petitioner had been impounded as she had been declared a proclaimed person.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, gone through the record available on file.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.6, Kotak Mahindra Bank, filed two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, wherein her address was mentioned as that of her husband viz. 68-A, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, whereas she was residing in New Delhi at that time. The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person on 14.11.2017 and respondent No.6-Ba
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
