1. Heard.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the revocation of passport on 23.01.2017 (Annexure No.1) at the behest of respondent no.4.

3. Petitioner has not been heard before the passport was revoked on 23.01.2017. There is violation of principles of natural justice. There is also arbitrariness in the decision of the respondent-Union of India whereby the validly issued passport has been revoked/cancelled. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 597, in the case of “Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & another”, have held as under:-

“57. The question immediately arises : does the procedure prescribed by the Passports Act, 1967 for impounding a passport meet the test of this requirement ? Is it 'right or fair or just' ? The argument of the petitioner was that it is not, because it provides for impounding of a passport without affording reasonable opportunity to the holder of the passport to be heard in defence. To impound the passport of a person, said the petitioner, is a serious matter, since it prevents him from exercising his constitutional right to go abroad and such a drastic consequence cannot in fairness be visited without observing the principle of audi