- (1.) The subject matter of challenge in this writ-application is an order passed by the respondent no. 4, Superintendent (Administration), Regional Passport Authority, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, impounding the Passport of the petitioner.
(2.) It is the case of the writ-petitioner that he is a bona fide passport holder having Passport No. E2832990 issued on October 9, 2002 which is to remain valid till October 8, 2012. It is his further case, on or about third week of February, 2006 he received a show cause notice issued by the respondent no. 4, calling upon him to show cause as to why his passport should not be impounded under Section 10 (3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") as it has come to the notice of the said respondent that the petitioner is involved in Howrah G.R.P.S. Case No. 201/05. The petitioner duly submitted his reply against the said show cause notice contending that in the given facts and circumstances his passport is not liable to be impounded. Soon thereafter petitioner received another letter whereby he was again called upon to furnish either an order of acquittal or an order from the Court concerned permitting him to hold the passport. The petitioner again submitted his reply within the stipulated period. However he received no further communication from the said respondent in this regard and finally came to learn that on April 17, 2007 the respondent no. 4 communicated to the different authorities in-charge of various departure points from India as well as other concerned authorities that the passport of the petitioner has been impounded. In the said communication the addressees were also requested that if the passport in question is found or presented to them for any service, the same may be impounded and be forwarded to the respondent no. 4 for disposal. They were also requested to maintain a warning card on the writ-petitioner and should not extend passport facilities of any kind to him without taking prior clearance from the respondent no. 4.
(3.) Now, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the order impugned was passed mechanically and no reason was assigned for impounding his passport. He further submitted that in the given facts and circumstances of the case there is no scope nor the respondent authorities were justified in impounding his passport. Accordingly, he prays the order of impound of passport be quashed and the communication made thereunder to different authorities pursuant to impound of his passport be recalled. On the other hand, at the very outset the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities contended that the instant writapplication is not maintainable, since the order impugned is an appealble order and appeal lies before the Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. Therefore the petitioner having alternative remedy under the statute cannot approach this Court to ventilate his grievances. The learned Counsel of the respondents further urged that the order of impounding passport is absolutely justified and question of assigning further reasons does not at all arise, as before impounding of passport a show cause notice was issued calling upon the writ-petitioner to explain as to why his passport should not be impounded and in the said show cause notice it was clearly spelt out as to why the respondent authority proposed to impound his passport. It is further contended that the respondent authority being informed by the police that a case being Howrah G.R.P.S. Case No. 201/05 is registered, at once issued show cause notice to the writ-petitioner and as his reply was not found to be satisfactory very rightly his passport was impounded. Accordingly, the learned Counsel of the respondent authorities submitted this writ-application is completely devoid of any merit and the same be dismissed.;