JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021 By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing the order at Ext.P4 letter dated 14.12.2020 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Kozhikode, thereby impounding the passport of his son in exercise of powers under Section 10(3)(h) of the Passport Act, 1967.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner, prior to passing the impugned order at Ext.P4. It is further argued that the order impounding the passport is signed for and on behalf of the Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode and therefore, it is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that it is settled law that reasonable opportunity of hearing needs to be granted while impounding the passport and the passport cannot be impounded without assigning any reason, in an arbitrary manner.

3. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents opposed the contentions of the petitioner and justified the action of impounding of the passport by contending that Non Bailable Warrant has been issued against petitioner's son and therefore, the authorities are perfectly justified in impounding the passport by following due process of law .

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the materials placed before me.

5. It is seen from the records that on 20.11.2020, a show cause notice (Ext.P1) came to be issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, directing one Ramsan Parancheri, i.e., petitioner's son to show cause as to why his passport should not be impounded. The show cause notice at Ext.P1 in clear terms states that the National Investigating Agency, Kochi has informed the office that Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner's son by the Special Court, NIA, Kochi, he being accused in NIA Case No.RC-02/2020/NIA/KOC. The petitioner was directed to submit suitable explanation and clarification within ten days of the receipt of the letter. Necessary provision of law was also quoted in the show cause notice. In other words, it is clear that the petitioner's son was made aware of the case against him requiring impounding of his passport. 6. The petitioner's son has duly replied this show cause notice by his reply at Ext.P2 and has contended that he is willing to appear and attend any proceedings before the NIA Special Court, Kochi and he will abide by the directions issued by the said court. It is further averred in that reply that the he has been abroad much prior to the alleged issuance of warrant against him by the NIA Special Court, Kochi and therefore the proposed action is invalid and illegal.

7. Issuance of show case notice and eliciting reply from the petitioner is sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice. In the case in hand, the petitioner's son is not even disputing the fact that he is arraigned as an accused in the Special case instituted as a result of investigation conducted by the National Investigating Agency for offences punishable under Sections 16,17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The said court had issued Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest against the petitioner and that warrant is pending execution. 8. Section 10(3)(h) of the Passport Act, 1967 reads thus:-

''(3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document:-

(h) if it is brought to the notice of the passport authority

that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a Court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such Court and the passport authority is satisfied that a warrant

or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made.''

It i