The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of natural justice to the impounding of passports, emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of the power to impound a passport and the requirement to afford the holder a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

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 Petitioner has not been heard before the passport was revoked on 23.01.2017.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 There is also arbitrariness in the decision of the respondent-Union of India whereby the validly issued passport has been revoked/cancelled.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 alterant partem. Any procedure which permits impairment of the constitutional right to go abroad without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause cannot but be condemned as unfair and unjust and hence, there is in the present case clear infringement of the requirement of Article 21. Now, it is true that there is no express provision in the Passports Act, 1967 which requires that the audi alteram partem rule should be followed before impounding a passport, but that is not conclusive of the question. If the statute makes itself clear on this point, then no more question arises. But even when the statute is silent, the law may in a given case make an implication and apply the principle stated by Bytes, J., in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [1863] 14C B.N.S. 180. "A long course of decisions, beginning with Dr. Bentley's case and ending with some very recent cases, establish that, although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission off the legislature". The principle of audi alterant partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. In fact, there are two main principles in which the rules of natural justice are manifested, namely, Nemo Judex in Sua Causa and audi alterant partem. We are not concerned here with the former, since there is no case of bias urged here. The question is only in regard to the right of hearing which involves the audi alterant partem rule. Can it be imported in the procedure for impounding a passport?

58. We may commence the discussion of this question with a few general observations to emphasise the increasing importance of natural justice in the field of administrative law. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest spoke of this rule in eloquent terms in his address before the Bentham Club:

We can, I think, take pride in what has been done in recent periods and particularly in the field of administrative law by invoking and by applying these principles which we broadly classify under the designation of natural justice. Many testing problems as to their application yet remain to be solved. But I affirm that the area of administrative action is but one area in which the principles are to be deployed. Nor are they to be invoked only when procedural failures are shown. Does natural justice qualify to be described as a "majestic" conception ? I believe it does. Is it just a rhetorical but vague phrase which can be employed, when needed, to give a gloss of assurance ? I believe t