Impounding of passport and principle of Natural justice

Delhi High Court: While deciding a case regarding appellants' impounding of passport, the Court said that as per Section 10(5) of the Passport Act, 1967 the passport authority shall record, in writing, a brief statement of the adequate and cogent reasons for an order of impounding or revoking a passport or travel documents. The Court, relying upon the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597, said that Passport Authority has power to impound a passport but that would amount to violation of constitutional right under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India if such order is passed in ignorance of application of mind and without any justified reasons. The Court, further, said that if no notice is server upon the holder of the passport and no reasonable opportunity is given to him to show that why his passport should not be impounded then it would also amount to violation of the principle of audi alteram partem.
In the present case, the petitioner's passport was impounded by the passport authority without giving any justification owing to the fact that he was facing trial under Section 498A and 406 of IPC and was on bail. Further, the bail was given on the condition that he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The Court setting aside the Regional Passport Officer's order of passport impounding said that the appellant should continue to attend the criminal trial pending against him and should not flee the country without prior permission of the Court till the fresh order under Section 10(3) of Passport Act is passed. [Manish Kumar Mittal v. Chief Passport Officer, W.P.(C) 4835/2013, decided on August 5, 2013]

Print Page