Whether court or police has power to impound passport?

In our opinion, while the police may have the power to seize a passport under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C., it does not have the power to impound the same. Impounding of a passport can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967.

15. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document the said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property/or document. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition), the word "impound" has been defined to mean

"to take possession of a document or thing for being held in custody in accordance with law".

Thus, the word "impounding" really means retention of possession of a good or a document which has been seized.

16. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C. if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 Cr.P.C.), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the Passport Authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter the Passport Authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the Passport Authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a party vide State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei [MANU/SC/0332/1967 : Air 1967 SC 1269].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)

W.P.(MD) No. 24591 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 22299 of 2018

Decided On: 11.02.2020

 Gideon Jacob Vs. The Foreigners's Regional Registration Officer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Sundar, J.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Passport Authorities have no power to impose penalties or fine for violation of passport Act

1) The poignant question raised is whether an authority under the Passports Act, 1967, has any power to impose penalty/fine invoking the powers under Section 12 of the Act 1967. It is submitted by the petitioners that as per relevant provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, a passport authority

defined under Section 2(c) of the Act has only delegated powers to issue

passport under Section 5(2)(a) or reject an incomplete passport

application under Section 5(2)(c) or refuse a passport under Section 6(2)

or restrict the validity under Section 7(b) or impound/revoke a passport

under Section 10(3) of the said Act, and not to impose any penalty.

2) Taking into account the rival submissions made across the Bar,

our endeavour is to find out the legal purport of Section 12 of the Act

1967 extracted above. On a reading of Section 12(1), it is clear that

offences and penalties are prescribed for contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or for the reasons enumerated thereunder, which shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term prescribed thereunder or with fine prescribed thereunder or with both. Therefore, it is evident from the

provisions that in the event of any person found guilty, he is liable to be

punished with an imprisonment for a term prescribed thereunder or in

the alternative to impose fine prescribed thereunder or with both.

Therefore, on a deeper analysis of the provision, it is amply clear that the

passport issuing authority or any of the authorities under the Act, 1967

are given powers under the Passports Act, 1967 or Rules framed

thereunder, to initiate prosecution for the contravention of the provisions

of the Passports Act, 1967. A reading of the provision further shows

that, the power to punish with imprisonment is conferred only to the

Magistrates as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Fine as

an alternative to imprisonment on finding guilty, can only be imposed by

the competent Magistrate who adjudicates the issue on the basis of any

complaint filed by the passport authority. Therefore, it is unequivocal that the passport authority is not vested with

any powers under Section 12 to impose any fine on any person who

commits any offence in contemplation of Section 12 of the Act 1967.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

&

 MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

WP(C).No.7945 OF 2018(S)

 CITIZENS LEGAL RIGHT ASSOCIATION Vs  UNION OF INDIA

Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2020

S.Manikumar, CJ.

Print Page

Whether passport authorities can refuse to issue passport to accused even if court has permitted him to travel abroad?

 The principal grievance of the petitioner is with regard to denial of passport facilities by respondent no. 5 (Regional Passport Office). The said facilities have been denied to the petitioner, as he has been charged with offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the case of the respondents that since charges have been framed in view of the aforesaid criminal case, passport facilities have been denied to the petitioner in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.

6. In view of the above, the provisions of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Act cannot be read to deny passport facilities to the petitioner, as he has obtained the necessary permission from the concerned Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the PEC Limited (respondent no. 2) had contended that the said order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Court of the Special Judge is conditional and permits issuance of a passport only if it is otherwise permissible as per the relevant passport rules. However, apart from referring to Sections 6(2)(f) and 10 of Act, he has not drawn the attention of this Court to any other rule, which would preclude the petitioner from obtaining passport facilities. The reliance on Section 10 of the Act is ex facie misplaced, since it pertains only to impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents. The relevant provision is Clause (f) of Subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Act. However, the rigors of that provision, as noticed above, have been relaxed by the notification dated 25.08.1993.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (C) 12136/2018

Decided On: 13.05.2019

 Rajiv Chaturvedi  Vs.  Union of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

Print Page

Whether passport can be returned to accused if police has illegally seized passport?

Considering the observations of the Courts in the aforesaid
decision, it is clear that the power of impounding are vested with
the Passport Authority. In the circumstances, the passport was

seized by the respondents on 13th March, 2014. Retention of
passport for such a long period amounting to impounding, which
is not permissible in law. The illegality cannot continue in
perpetuity. It is within the domain of the Passport Authority to
initiate action under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act. In the
light of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of
Suresh Nanda (Supra), the decision can be taken by such
Authority after hearing the passport holder. The illegal
impounding therefore cannot be continued by handing over the
passport by the respondents to the Passport Authority after a
lapse of more than three years. However, it would be open to the
Passport Authority to initiate any action under Section 10(3)(e) of
the Passport Act. The passport, however, is required to be
returned to the applicant. This order is without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the respondents any other Competent
Authority, Passport Authority to initiate action and of impounding
under the provisions of the Passport Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2018

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DELIVERED ON : JUNE 04, 2018.

Print Page

When consumer complaint is maintainable in respect of issue of passport?

The Government of India has already outsourced a number of functions post-decision of the
Passport Officer to issue passport to an applicant, to an outside agency. A perusal of the Press
Release dated 30.7.2014 issued by Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs would show
that under a Public-Private Partnership approach adopted by the Government, while retaining the
core and sovereign functions such as verification of supporting documents, police verification,
decision on grant of passports, revocation and impounding of passports, the activities such as
token issuance, initial security of application forms, digitization of documents, taking photographs
and biometrics are now being performed by the staff of the service provider. The aforesaid step
taken by the Government also indicates that the activities post decision of the passport officer to
issue the passports to an applicant, i.e. activities such as printing, preparation, dispatch and
delivery of the passport etc., are non-sovereign activities and that is why the said activities have
been outsourced to a private agency.
 For the reasons stated hereinabove, the reference is answered as under:
(i) A person, who applies for a passport and to whom a passport is ordered to be
issued, is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. We make it clear
that he will be a consumer only in respect of the activities which the Passport
Office or the agency to which such activities are outsourced, undertakes, after the
decision of the Passport Officer to issue a passport to the applicant;
(ii) An unjustified delay in preparation, issue, dispatch and delivery of the
passport, occurring after the Passport Officer has decided to issue passport to the
applicant or any other defect or deficiency in the activities post the decision of the
passport officer to issue a passport to the applicant, would constitute defect or
deficiency in the service as defined in Section 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) respectively of
the Consumer Protection Act and a consumer complaint, seeking compensation for
such a defect or deficiency is maintainable;
(iii) any defect or deficiency in the document of passport issued to a person would
constitute defect or deficiency as defined in Section 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) respectively
of the Consumer Protection Act and a consumer complaint, seeking compensation
for such a defect or deficiency is maintainable.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 120 OF 2015

 PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE  Vs  RICHA BHANDARI

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

Dated : 16 Mar 2016

Print Page

What are rules for grant of permission to issue passport to person against whom criminal prosecution is pending?

 It seems that after the Supreme Court judgment of Maneka Gandhi's case, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the said Act, issued a notification dated 16th August, 1979 exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before any criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of the clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, subject to the following conditions, namely.

(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued.

(i) where the order of the Court referred to above, gives such permission for a period not exceeding three months, for a period of three months and an observation will be made on the passport that the holder may travel abroad for a period not exceeding that specified in such order; or

(ii) if no period is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period for six months and may be renewed for a further period of six months, if the order of the Court is not cancelled or modified; or

(iii) in any other case, for the period for which such permission is given by such order;

(b) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport authority that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.

9. By the notification dated 25th August, 1993, the earlier notification was substituted granting exemption to the citizens against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a Criminal Court in India and who produce order from the Court concerned permitted them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 the said Act, subject to following conditions, namely,

(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued;

(i) for the period specified in order of the Court referred to above, if the Court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or

(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;

(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period of validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or

(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.

(b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the Court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the Court is not cancelled or modified;

(c) the passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be fresh, order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;

(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport authority that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.

Bombay High Court

Deepak Dwarkasingh Chhabria vs Union Of India And Another on 8 August, 1996

Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 Bom 181, 1996 (2) MhLj 877

Bench: A Shah

Print Page

High Court Orders Issuing of Passport to Five -year-old Born out of live-in-relationship

KOCHI:The Kerala High Court on Friday came to the rescue of a five-year-old girl, born from a live-in relationship, by asking the passport officer to issue an Indian passport to her within two weeks.

 The Regional Passport Office had denied her the travel document stating that child was not born in a legal wedlock. The court directed the authorities to consider the case on humanitarian grounds.Justice A V Ramakrishna Pillai issued the order on the petition filed by Sindhu George of Muvattupuzha, seeking permission to take her daughter to the US along with her. She submitted before the court that she had a troublesome live-in relationship and had given birth to a daughter.

At present the kid is living with her and there is no litigation till date between the petitioner and the child’s father.

Print Page

Show Cause Notice

Show cause notice is requires to be speaking in nature too enable the person concerned to answer the materials contained in the notice. A show cause notice with out any materials for deliquent to answer is no show cause notice.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.19615 of 2010
DR.PURNENDU OJHA .
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR .
3.
24.01.2011
Citation: AIR 2011 Patna 54
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India.
Counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the respondents on 21.1.2011. It is not on record. The Registry shall place it on record. The Court requested the counsel for the Union of India to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground. Let the office retain on record a Xerox copy of the same.
A rejoinder and a supplementary affidavit are stated to have been field on behalf of the petitioner today in the Registry. The Registry shall place it on record also.
The petitioner was issued a Passport in the year 1990 by the Passport authority at Patna. It is his case that the Passport was renewed in 1999 and again in the year 2009. It is his further case that through the validity of the Passport, he has utilized the same on several occasions for overseas
2
travel without any let or hindrance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is embroiled in property litigation with a family member. An issue of his citizenship was sought to be raised by the latter behind his back culminating in a show cause notice dated 1.7.2010 issued to him by the Superintendent Passport Office at Patna informing him that he had obtained a Passport without obtaining Indian citizenship and by furnishing false and fabricated information. Asking him to show cause he was directed to deposit his Passport. The petitioner replied to the same denying all allegations asserting Indian citizenship by birth. The petitioner then filed C.W.J.C. No. 14085 of 2010, questioning the show cause notice and which is pending. On 3.8.2010, he was issued another show cause notice acknowledging his reply and reasserting that it had been reported to the Passport office that petitioner had obtained Passport on false information without Indian Citizenship. He was again directed to surrender his passport, failing which action would be taken under the Passport Act. The petitioner responded to the same denying allegation when finally orders have been passed on 20.10.2010 revoking his Passport. A look out notice was issued

Print Page