IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22608 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PEERU MOHAMMED, 46/25A, KOCHUNELLIVILAKAM, KANICKAVILAKOM, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INIDA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-24. 3. THE SENIOR IMIGRATION OFFICER, BUREAU OF IMIGRATION, C.S.I.AIRPORT MUMBAI-400099. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1&R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22608/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner holds Ext.P1 passport. He is conducting a travel agency in the name and style M/s.Altima Tours and Travels Private Limited. Petitioner is one of the accused in C.C.No.1/09 of Special Court (SPE/CBI)-1, Ernakulam. CBI registered a crime against the officials of the Emigration Department and several recruiting agents for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner is the 23rd accused in Crime No.13(A)/06. Investigating Agency, in the course of investigation, had taken into custody the original recruitment licence as also the passport of the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application before the CBI for release of his passport and original Recruiting licence. The CBI objected to the same. By Ext.P2 order, the CBI, taking note of the fact that there are no allegations of forgery against the petitioner and referring to Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India, directed that the petitioner's passport shall be released to him subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, passport was released. W.P.(C).22608/09 2 2. Thereafter, a notice impounding the passport was issued as Ext.P3 to which the petitioner filed Ext.P4 objections and thereafter, since the petitioner wanted to go abroad in connection with his business, he moved the CBI Court again for release of the passport and which was ordered as per Ext.P6. Petitioner complied with the conditions in Ext.P6. It seems that subsequently, the passport was again impounded by the 3rd respondent and it is challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Ext.P6 order under which the passport was directed to be released to the petitioner, contemplates the petitioner remaining in possession of the passport for a period of 120 days. If that be so, further impounding of the passport within the said period could have been effected only after getting permission from the Court. W.P.(C).22608/09 3 5. Accordingly, the impounding of the petitioner's passport effected on 27.7.2009 is declared as illegal and passport belonging to the petitioner shall be released to him within one week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will continue to be bound by the conditions contained in Ext.P6 and if the petitioner requires an extension of the time to remain in possession of the passport, it is upto him to move the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-1, Ernakulam, seeking appropriate orders in this regard. If the passport which is already issued to the petitioner and directed to be released as per this order, already contains sufficient endorsement of Visa, and additional booklet is therefore required to enable the petitioner to use the passport, same shall also be considered on the petitioner's application subject to compliance with the requisite formalities. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs