Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shashank Shekhar vs Union Of India on 8 May, 2015
1
W.P.No.2390/2015
08/5/2015
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Ku.
Mahim Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Counsel appears on
behalf of the respondents/Union of India submits that
he has no instructions.
In view of the above, the petition is taken up for hearing.
By this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Shashank Shekhar has challenged show cause notice dated 9/1/2015 and the order impounding of passport dated 9/1/2015 passed by the respondent No.2 Regional Passport Office, Bhopal.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are the petitioner is a passport holder bearing J1432281 and the passport was issued to him by the respondent on 28/10/2010. However, it so happened in the year 2013 FIR was lodged against the petitioner for offence under Sections 341, 294, 506/34 of the IPC and after investigation the 2 charge sheet was filed against him. However, to shock and surprise of the petitioner, he received a show cause notice calling explanation as to why he had suppressed the material information at the time of obtaining the passport and on the same date without granting proper opportunity of hearing the respondent No.2 Regional Passport Office, Bhopal passed the impugned order dated 9/1/2015 impounding of passport of the petitioner. And hence, the present petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that both the show cause and the order impounding of the passport were received by the petitioner on 24/1/2015. However, Counsel submitted that the order was contrary to the provisions of law, besides the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Counsel submitted that the passport was issued to the petitioner in the year 2010, whereas the criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in the year 2013. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to disclose any such details regarding the 3 pendency of the criminal case against him at the time of applying for the passport. Counsel further submitted that all the necessary formalities were carried out by the petitioner at the time of obtaining the passport. Counsel submitted that the petitioner is a respectable person and he is serving in M/s Omaxe Limited, Indore and he is likely to go abroad on promotional scheme, a benefit given by the Company vide Annexure P/6. Counsel prayed that the order impounding of the passport be set aside. To bolster his submission, Counsel relied on Manish Kumar Mittal vs. Chief Passport Officer and another DLT 2013 202317 or ILRDLH 2013231956 whereby the Apex Court has held that as per Subsection (5) of Section 10 of the Act, the passport authority makes an order impounding or revoking a passport or travel documents under subsection 3,it shall record, in writing, a brief statement of the reasons for making such an order and furnish to the holder of the passport or travel document on demand a copy of the same; unless, in any case, the passport authority is of the opinion that 4 it will not be in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, or friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interest of the general public to furnish such a copy. And in the present case this was not done and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Moreover, the Apex Court also relied on the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another AIR 1978 SC 597, whereby the passport of the petitioner was impounded in the public interest and because the Govt. of India declined, in the interest of the general public to furnish the reasons in its decision, the order was set aside. Hence, Counsel submitted that in the present case also the discretion by the authorities under Section 10(5)(3) has not been properly exercised. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order and the show cause notice be set aside.
Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner. However, he was unable to file a reply to the petition despite grant of opportunity and stated that 5 he has no instructions in the matter.
Looking to the urgency of the matter and time granted to the respondents, I find that the impugned order needs to be set aside placing reliance on the case of Maneka Gandhi (supra) and Manish Kumar Mittal (supra) and it is directed that the passport cannot be impounded without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per the provisions of Passport Act and Section 10(5)(3) of the Passport Act 1967, which has not been done. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the Passport Authority is however, at liberty to take any action against the petitioner, but only after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with the above mentioned provisions of law.
With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed to the extent herein above indicated.
No costs. C.c. as per rules.
(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni