Delhi High Court
Amitabh Sinha vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 July, 2017
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7760/2016 and CM APPL.Nos. 40862/2016 & 32033/2016
AMITABH SINHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Avneesh Garg and Mr Mahinder
Pratap, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Umesh Sharma, Senior Panel
Counsel along with Mr Abhishek
Khanna, Govt. Pleader for R-1 to 3.
Ms Deepali Gupta, Advocate for
applicant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 26.07.2017
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as
under:-
"a) Pass an order issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records
of the case pertaining to the revocation of the passport of
the Petitioner bearing no. Z2113298 and after perusing
the said records, quash such revocation as being illegal,
null and void;
b) As a consequence of the aforesaid revocation, issue a
Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents for restoring the
Passport No. Z2113298 of the Petitioner;"
2. The petitioner's grievance is that his passport has been revoked by the
passport authority without issuing him any show cause notice and without
giving him any opportunity of being heard.
3. The petitioner's passport was revoked by an order dated 17.05.2016
by the Consulate General of India in New York on grounds stated in Section
10(3)(e) and (h) of the Passport Act, 1967. The petitioner claims that this
order was also not served on the petitioner. Section 10(3)(e) and (h) are set
out below:-
"10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports
and travel documents
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be
impounded or revoke a passport or travel document,-
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by the holder of the passport or travel
document are pending before a criminal court in India;
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(h) if it is brought to the notice of the passport authority that
a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for
the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document
has been issued by a court under any law for the time being
in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India
of the holder of the passport or other travel document has
been made by any such court and the passport authority is
satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an
order has been so made."
4. It appears that the sole reason for revocation of the passport is the
allegation that the petitioner has been avoiding service in various legal
proceedings that have been instituted by his estranged wife. The learned
counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that a look out circular
(LOC) had been issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore dated
23.12.2015 in connection with one of the FIRs that was lodged by the
petitioner's wife.
5. The attention of this Court is drawn to the order dated 09.09.2016
passed by the Karnataka High Court in the W.P. no. 48962/2016 captioned
as "Karthickeya v. Amitabh Sinha and Anr.", whereby the High Court has
directed the officers of respondent no.2 (Government of India) to restrain the
petitioner from travelling abroad without obtaining further orders of that
Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner's wife (who has filed
an interim application) has also handed over a copy of the order dated
09.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. no.
49597/2016 captioned as "Sunita Motwani & Anr. v. Amitabh Sinha"
wherein the petitioner has been directed not to leave the country till the
cases are settled. The learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn the
attention of this Court to an order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka in W.P. no. 48962/2016 directing respondent therein
(Central Government) to bring to the attention of this Court, the proceedings
pending in Karnataka.
6. It is apparent from the above that there are certain disputes that have
arisen between the petitioner and his wife and are pending before the courts
in Karnataka. The petitioner's wife has also filed complaints which are
pending at various stages. It also prima facie appears that the petitioner has
not been participating in those proceedings. However, the learned counsel
for the petitioner states that the petitioner did not have notice of the
proceedings earlier, but is now aware of the proceedings mentioned above
and is participating in the said proceedings.
7. The limited scope of examination in the present case is the validity of
the decision of the Consulate General of India in New York to revoke the
petitioner's passport. The respondents dispute the contention that a show
cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his passport not
be revoked was not issued. The respondents have filed certain documents
including the show cause notice dated 21.09.2015 in support of their
contention.
8. It is clear from the affidavit filed that the show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner at the address in USA and the same was not
delivered. The envelopes in which the show-cause notice was returned by
the US postal authorities had the remark "UTF" written on them; which, this
Court is informed, stands for 'Unable to Forward'.
9. Concededly, no attempt was made by the respondents to issue show
cause notice at the permanent address of the petitioner as reflected in the
passport and as also available on the records of the respondents.
10. The petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the copy of
his passport which indicates that the petitioner had entered New York on
04.10.2015. The show cause notice issued by the respondents at the address
in USA was issued on 21.09.2015. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner that
the show cause notice could not have been served to the petitioner in USA,
is merited.
11. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to examine the allegations
against the petitioner regarding him avoiding service as the same ought to
have been examined by the concerned passport authority in the first
instance. Since, it is apparent that the order revoking the petitioner's passport
was passed without sufficient notice to the petitioner and without affording
the petitioner an opportunity to meet the allegations, the said order cannot be
sustained.
12. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.05.2016 revoking
the petitioner's passport is set aside. The concerned passport authority is at
liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a show cause notice to the
petitioner at his permanent address. The concerned authority shall take an
informed decision after affording the petitioner, sufficient opportunity to be
heard, in accordance with law.
13. It is also noticed that the petitioner has been restrained from travelling
overseas in terms of the order passed by the Karnataka High Court and the
learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that
he shall abide by the said order and make no attempt to travel outside this
country without securing appropriate orders from the Karnataka High Court
and or the concerned court in Karnataka. The petitioner is directed to file
such undertaking by way of an affidavit in this Court within a period of one
week from today with a copy to the learned counsel for the intervener.
14. The petition and all the pending applications are disposed of.
15. Order dasti.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JULY 26, 2017
RK
