High Court · 2006

Order

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent-Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad, in impounding the petitioner’s passport vide proceedings dated 10.9.2004. The petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.E4055697, which is valid up to 18.12.2012. It is stated that the petitioner is one of the Directors of a power company by name M/s Spectrum Power Generation Limited, Kakinada. On a complaint made by A.P. Transco, the sole buyer of the electricity produced by the M/s Spectrum Power Generation Limited, alleging that the Directors of M/s Spectrum Power Generation Limited had over run the cost of the project, Crime No.21/2004 was registered with the police, C.I.D., Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 403, 405, 408, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, along with his father and elder brother, who were shown as the accused, filed Crl.M.P.No.2715 of 2004 in the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, seeking anticipatory bail, and the same was granted by order dated 19.10.2004. Though the State of Andhra Pradesh filed Crl. Petition No.5027 of 2004 before this Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail, the same was dismissed. It is not in dispute that in compliance with the directions of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.2715 of 2004, the petitioner had deposited his passport with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Hyderabad, on 6.4.2005 and, the investigation in Crime No.21 of 2004 still pending. While so, the petitioner, who is stated to have been suffering from a chronic eye ailment for the past several years, intended to go for a check up with Opticians at London, and was contemplating to approach the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge for relaxation of the conditions. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that his passport was impounded by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 10.9.2004. It is stated that though he was served with a show cause notice dated

15.7.2004, calling upon to show cause as to why his passport should not be impounded under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act (for short “the Act”), 1967 on the ground of registration of Crime No.21/2004, thereafter, he was not heard anything in the matter. As a matter of fact, he submitted a detailed reply dated 26.7.2004 stating that the proposed action to impound his passport is illegal and also sought for a personal hearing. Since no order was served on him thereafter, he was under a bona fide impression that the proceedings were dropped. It is claimed that he came to know about the impugned order recently, and in spite of several requests, the petitioner was not even provided with a certified copy of the said order dated 10.9.2004. Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2 respondent, and perused the material on record. The impugned order is questioned primarily on the ground that Section 10(3)(e) of the Act is not applicable, since Crime No.21/2004 is still under investigation, and no proceedings are pending before any Criminal Court. It is further contended that the impugned order, which is passed without giving an opportunity of being heard, and which is devoid of reasons, is violative of fundamental principles of natural justice. In support of the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision in Smt. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India [1] . In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent the fact that the investigation in Crime No.21/2004 is still pending has not been disputed. However, it is stated that the petitioner was issued a prior notice and the impugned order was passed after considering the explanation given by the petitioner. It is contended that since the fact that the petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.21/2004 is not in dispute, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and that the interference by this Court is not warranted. Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, which deals with variation, impounding of passports may be extracted hereunder: “ 10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents:- 10(1) …… (2) …… (3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document. (a) ……. (b) ……….. (c) ………. (d) ………. (e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal Court in India; (f) …… (g) ……. (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. …………………………………………” In the instant case, it is true that the investigation by the C.I.D. in Crime No.21/2004 is still pending and no charge sheet has been filed in the Court. As such, it cannot be said that any proceedings are pending against the petitioner before a Criminal Court. However, it is a matter of record that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, while granting anticipatory bail directed the petitioner to surrender his passport to the concerned C.I.D. Police. Such order prohibiting the petitioner’s departure from India is one of the grounds enumerated under clause (h) of Section 10(3) of the Act, for impounding a passport. Though Section 10 (3) (e) of the Act is not attracted, since the power exercised by the 2nd respondent in impounding the petitioner’s passport can be traced to Section 10 (3) (h) of the Act, the impugned action cannot be said to be without authority. The further contention that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice is also without any substance since admittedly a show cause notice was issued informing the petitioner about the proposed action under the Act and the explanation submitted by him was considered before passing the impugned order. I am also unable to hold that the impugned order is bad for want of reasons, since it is based on an undisputed fact that the petitioner’s departure from India is prohibited by virtue of an order passed by a competent court and the same is subsisting as on today. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Kgr THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21447 OF 2006

27.11.2006. 27th November, 2006. Between: M. Subrahmanyam. .. Petitioner. And The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House, Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi and another. .. Respondents. [1] AIR 1975 SC 597.