Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In view of the fact that Competent Authority being a Senior Government of India Officer had already accepted the property of the petitioner as legitimate, the order passed on 23.1.1998 ignoring the order dated 20.10.1997 renders the order of the Joint Secretary dated 23.1.1998 arbitrary and liable to be struck down, as rendered without application of mind to the relevant facts."

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the respondents, as referred to above, is clearly an arbitrary exercise of power and is unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has merely been granted a limited right to travel between India and United Arab Emirates though she and her children are entitled to passport valid for 20 years as well as for travel in all countries of the world. Reference is made to the provisions of Section 6 of the Act which relates to refusal of passports or refusal to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country. This provision reads as follows:

"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents etc.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:-
(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;
(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:-

16. The reason for declining for issue of full passport to the petitioner on the above ground has, therefore, become non-existent. The Appellate Authority has given another reason that there was reason to believe that if the petitioner was allowed to go to United Kingdom she would obtain detailed instructions from her husband to dispose of Benami properties in India and abroad. Such reasons cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as it is assumed that the respondents will exercise the power in a reasonable and responsible manner. The instructions, if any, can still be obtained by the petitioner without travelling to United Kingdom and there is no specific charge against her which has been even remotely discussed in the impugned Order. In any case some of the properties have since been released by the Authorities in India and the challenge to the Order passed by the Competent Authority has been repelled upto the Supreme Court. The provisions of subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Act which prescribes the grounds for retricting the passport and refusing to make an endorsement are clearly specified and they have not been taken into consideration by the respondents in assessing the case of the petitioner. There is no dispute with the settled proposition of law with regard to the limited scope of interference in judicial review. This Court cannot normally substitute its own conclusion but it is open to exercise power of review when the orders are made either on no evidence or on evidence which is irrelevant and does not exist. The purpose of judicial review is, therefore, to ensure that an individual receives fair treatment and principles of natural justice are fully complied with.