Krishna Had Vallala vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 2387 Tel

        HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

             WRIT PETITION No.25657 OF 2023


ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent

Passport Authority.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the

prayer as follows:

"To issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in initiating proceedings to impound Passport of the Petitioner bearing Passport No.X8751927 dated 03.05.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural Justice and consequently set- aside the notice dated 24.08.2023, vide File No. HY7075321709923LetterRef.No.SCN/314801463/23 issued by the 2nd respondent to impound the passport of the petitioner."

3. The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned show

cause notice dated 24.08.2023 issued by the respondent

Passport Authority on the ground that on earlier occasions

also petitioner received two show cause notices from

respondent Passport authority dated 11.05.2023 and

24.07.2023, and the petitioner submitted detailed

explanations for both the said show cause notices issued to

the petitioner. However, without considering the same the 2 WP_25657_2023 SN,J

impugned show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by

the respondent Passport Authority on 24.08.2023, again and

the petitioner is harassed and hence the present writ petition.

4. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v Union of India

and another reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 and in Satish

Chandra Verma v Union of India and others reported in

2019 (2) SCC online SC 2048 very clearly observed that

the right to travel abroad is a part of a personal liberty

and the right to possess a passport etc can only be

curtailed in accordance with law only and not on the

subjective satisfaction of anyone. The procedure must

also be just, fair and reasonable.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal

Appeal No.1342 of 2017 was dealing with a person,

who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is

pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The

conviction was, however, stayed. In those

circumstances also it was held that the passport

authority cannot refuse the 'renewal' of the passport.

6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013

(15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of

Delhi at para 13 observed as under:

                               3                       WP_25657_2023
                                                                SN,J

"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

7. Section 10(d) of the Passports Act, 1967, reads as

under:

"10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents.

10 (d) if the holder of the passport or travel document has, at any time after the issue of the passport or travel document, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;"

8. A bare perusal of the above referred provision

clearly indicates that passport can be impounded only if

the holder has been convicted of an offence involving

'moral turpitude' and sentenced to imprisonment for

not less than two years, hence, essentially both the

said ingredients must be present for impounding a

passport. If this is the situation, post-conviction, this

Court is of the firm opinion, that the pendency of a

case/cases, is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to 4 WP_25657_2023 SN,J

demand the surrender of a passport and to impound the

same.

9. This Court opines that merely because a person is

an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot

'hold' or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence

every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven

guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is

pending against the person is not a ground to conclude

that he cannot possess or hold a passport.

10. Taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case and submissions of learned

counsel on record, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the petitioner to submit his detailed

explanation to the impugned show cause notice dated

24.08.2023, within one week, from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order and the respondent Authority to

consider the same, in accordance to law duly taking

into consideration the view taken by the Apex Court in

(1) Menaka Gandhi v Union of India and another

reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, (2) Satish Chandra Verma

v Union of India and others reported in 2019 (2) SCC

online SC 2048 (3) judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC 5 WP_25657_2023 SN,J

page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi

(referred to and extracted above) and also the

observations of this Court in the present order, and

pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks

on receipt of explanation from the petitioner to the

show cause notice dated 24.08.2023 and duly

communicate the decision to the petitioner. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

Date: 14.09.2023 Note: Issue CC in two days B/o Bw 6 WP_25657_2023 SN,J

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION No.25657 OF 2023 Date:14.09.2023 Note: Issue CC in two days Bw