IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1255 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.19111/2010 Dated 20/07/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- DR.NISHA SAIRA BENOY,PALACKAL HOUSE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD,KUTTAPPUZHA, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR(SR) SMT.P.K.RADHIKA SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024. 3. T.DILEEPKUMAR @ K.T.NAIR, SARANYA ASSOCIATES, ASWATHY,T.C.28/45, NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-24. 4. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024. R1, R2 & R4 BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1255 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, CJ. This appeal is filed aggrieved by an order dated 20.07.2010 by which a learned Judge of this Court declined to grant an interim order in favour of the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No.19111 of 2010. 2. The appellant, a lady, a medical graduate secured admission into a Post Graduate Medical Course in one of the institutions in England(Member of Royal College of General Practitioners). She is required to report there on or before 04.08.2010. The appellant is married to one Dr.Binoy Idicula Babu. She had been in England for some time along with her husband. There is an offspring boy child under the wedlock. However, during the appellant's stay in England earlier, it appears that there was some misunderstanding between the appellant and her husband. In view of the said misunderstanding when the appellant applied for a Passport in WA No. 1255 of 2010 -:2:- favour of the child as she decided to go to England again for pursuing her higher studies along with the child, the husband complained that the appellant secured the Passport in favour of the child on the basis of certain documents which according to the husband of the appellant are fabricated documents. As a consequence of the said complaint, a criminal case came to be registered against the appellant under the Passports Act, 1967. 3. In view of the registration of the said criminal case, the Passport of the appellant and the child were impounded. Therefore, the appellant approached this Court with the above mentioned writ petition. As the last date for reporting to the institution where the appellant proposes to pursue her higher studies is approaching, the appellant sought an interim order during the pendency of the writ petition that her Passport be returned to her to enable her to go to England. Such an interim order was declined by the order under appeal. Hence the present appeal. 4. On 22.07.2010 when the matter was taken up for admission, learned Assistant Solicitor General sought time to get WA No. 1255 of 2010 -:3:- instructions. Today when the matter came up, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that the authorities under the Passport Act are constrained to impound the Passport of the appellant in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the appellant as described earlier. The learned Assistant Solicitor General also stated that except the pendency of the abovementioned criminal case, there are no other factors which warrant the impounding of the Passport of the appellant. It may be mentioned here that Section 10(3) of the Passport Act indicates the various situations under which a Passport can be impounded or revoked. One such situation where such an action can be taken is in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity and security of India. Impounding of the Passport under sub-section (3) of Section 10 is not mandatory in every case. The language of sub-section (3) of Section 10 indicates that there is sufficient description in the State to impound or not to impound depending upon the facts situation. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 reads as follows: “(3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document.” WA No. 1255 of 2010 -:4:- 5. In the circumstances having regard to the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents be directed to release the Passport of the appellant on condition that the appellant undertakes to appear before the respondents as and when the respondents deem it necessary to secure the presence of the appellant in connection with any enquiry regarding the complaint against the appellant and also on condition that the appellant furnishes security in an amount of Rs.1 lakh by Demand Draft drawn from any nationalized bank within a period of one week from today. The amount so deposited shall be returned to the appellant on the termination of the writ petition. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ttb WA No. 1255 of 2010 -:5:-