HC sets aside Passport Impounding order issued a day before Petitioner's Reply was even due

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Single Judge’s refusal to entertain a writ petition challenging the impounding of a passport, holding that procedural unfairness justified invoking Article 226 despite the availability of a statutory appeal. The ruling reinforces that where fundamental procedural safeguards are breached, courts cannot shut the doors of writ jurisdiction on technical grounds.

The dispute arose after a petitioner’s passport was impounded under the Passports Act, 1967, with the Single Judge declining to hear the writ petition and directing the petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy under Section 11. Challenging this, the petitioner argued that the impounding order itself was procedurally flawed, as it was passed even before the expiry of the time granted to respond to the show cause notice.

The appeal highlighted that the notice allowed time until August 4, 2021, but the order was issued a day earlier, effectively denying a meaningful opportunity to respond. The petitioner further contended that prior submissions were not considered, rendering the decision arbitrary and violative of natural justice.

The Division Bench relied on the principle laid down in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, reiterating that alternative remedies do not bar writ jurisdiction where fundamental procedural violations are evident. The Court noted that the sequence of events itself indicated unfairness, observing that the order appeared to have been passed without waiting for the petitioner’s response. Emphasising the gravity of passport impounding, the Bench drew from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to stress that such actions carry serious civil consequences requiring strict adherence to due process. It concluded that “the impugned order appears to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice”, and held that the Single Judge ought not to have declined jurisdiction solely on the ground of alternative remedy.

Accordingly, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.