HAJRA IQBAL MEMON Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-1999-5-14
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 01,1999

HAJRA IQBAL MEMON Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL VS. A K CHOPRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

C.M.Nayar,J. - (1.)This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the restriction placed on travel on passport of the petitioner, such as, restricting her travel from India to United Arab Emirates only as well as a writ of mandamus seeking direction or commanding the respondents to issue passport valid for 20 years for all the countries of the world.
(2.)The petitioner is stated to be an Indian citizen and is presently residing in Dubai. She was holding an Indian Passport bearing No.A-992578 which expired in July 1996. She submitted her application for renewal on June 6, 1996 to respondent No.4 and on June 10, 1996 the petitioner went to collect the renewed passport from the said respondent. However, it was not delivered to her and she was told to come again. Consequently, she again visited the Consulate General of India at Dubai on June 12, 1996 on which date again it was not delivered to her. Thereafter, the petitioner made several such visits to the Consulate General and each time she was alleged to have been told to visit after one or two days. The petitioner has also mentioned that a similar incident happened in 1994 when passports of the petitioner and her three children were withheld by the Consulate General of India in Dubai for about a year and it was only after legal notice dated March 31, 1995 sent to respondent No.2 the passports were returned to the petitioner and her three children. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated July 1, 1996 to the Ministry of External Affairs wherein she requested for early return of her passport. There was again no response.
(3.)The petitioner moved this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to renew her passport. During the pendency of the petition the petitioner received a letter dated September 25, 1996 from the office of respondent No.4 informing the petitioner that her passport had been impounded under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport. Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was also rejected vide order dated January 1, 1997. As a consequence the petitioner amended her writ petition in the High Court and challenged the order impounding her passport. By judgment dated February 18, 1997 in Civil Writ Petition No.3088/96 this Court allowed the writ petition of the petitioner and set aside the order for impounding the passport as well as the Appellate order and concluding part of the judgment may be reproduced as under:
"The question now arises as to whether the order impounding the passport is mala fide or that the reasons for making the order are extraneous or they have no relevance or they cannot possibly support the making of the order in the interests of the general public. The order dated September 25, 1996 impounding the passport does not give any reasons for making such an order now the Appellate Authority' has applied its mind relevant to the issues. There is, therefore, total non-application of mind. The usual position is that in case a person travels to India and his or her passport is impounded this will obviously deny him or her right to leave this country so that in case some actions are contemplated he or she may be available. The admitted facts in this case are that there is no case which is pending against the petitioner. The plea that her husband is holed up in London from where he has not been extradited for the alleged crime he has committed in India cannot also form the ground on which the order of impounding the passport of the petitioner can be justified.

The provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act which makes it mandatory for reasons to be recorded in writing, have not been complied with and the impugned action cannot be sustained on this basis as well. The Order of the Appellate Authority specifies no better reasons to support the Order. The law is well settled by the judgments as cited above that the reasons have to be communicated to the petitioner for impounding and refusal . of issuance of the passport. This has not been done in the present case. The writ petition was filed in this Court and respondents have hurriedly issued the impugned Order which will indicate that the reasons now stated are extraneous and irrelevant. Therefore, the court in this situation has no choice but to strike down the impugned orders as the plea of the Passport Authority that it would not be in the interest of the general public to disclose the reasons, has not been substantiated by any cogent grounds. The learned counsel for the respondents has also not been able to support the order on the basis of law as referred to in the judgments cited above. The reliance on the judgment as reported in Union of India & others v. Smt. Charanjit Kaur 1987 (1) SCR page 1080 to reiterate that the respondents are at liberty to impound the passport of the wife of an alleged extremist leader stationed abroad is misplaced. That case was rendered on its own facts and relevant material was placed on record for taking action under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. The impounding Order was issued, while the wife was in this country for her alleged links which were held against the interest of general public. The impugned Orders in view of the above reasons cannot, therefore, be sustained and have to be set aside. It is always, however, open for the respondents to exercise powers under Section 10 of the Act to vary or cancel the endorsements on the passport or travel documents and may vary or cancel the conditions subject to which passport or travel documents have been issued by following the procedure as permissible in law."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.