CWP No.6412 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.6412 of 2011 Date of decision December 20, 2011 Hitesh Kapoor and another ....... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?Yes 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the order directing the petitioners to surrender the passport. This purports to be on an information secured by the authorities that a summoning order has been issued on the complaints filed against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Section 500 and 506 and other provisions of IPC at the instance of husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the second petitioner. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that as regards complaint filed by the relatives of the second petitioner through her husband, the High Court of Allahabad has issued on order of stay on further proceedings in the particular case registered against the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the power to issue an order to surrender document ought to be anchored to the provisions of the Passport Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the directions for CWP No.6412 of 2011 2 such a surrender is contemplated under Section 10(9) of the Act. The sub Section would require to be reproduced. “On the revocation of a passport or travel document under this section the holder thereof shall, without delay, surrender the passport or travel document, if the same has not already been impounded, to the authority by whom it has been revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of revocation.” The Section reads that on the revocation of the passport, the authority will be competent to direct the surrender of the passport. The manner of how the revocation is along with other reliefs is brought through Section 10 which deals with variation, impounding and revocation of the passport and travel documents. The language employed under Section 10 maintains distinctions between variation, impounding and revocation. The language of Section 10(4) reads as under:- “10 (4) The passport authority may also revoke a passport or travel document on the application of the holder thereof.” The Section makes it clear that the revocation can be on the application of the holder thereof and the only other circumstances when revocation is possible are set out under Section 10(3). Acts of Impounding and variation are distinct from revocation which are not covered through Section 10(4). it is not without meaning, for, a revocation by itself will not make possible the authority to obtain the recovery of the documents. Consequently once a revocation is done on the application of a party then through Section 10(9) the authority will be competent to direct the document to be surrendered. When there is a situation warranting impounding of a document, there is no necessity to pass an independent order requiring a surrender since the CWP No.6412 of 2011 3 expression impounding itself contemplates a situation of seizure of a document. (Referred to P. Ramanatha Aiyar's dictionary for meaning of impounding). In this case, admittedly the passport has not been revoked and the question of directions for surrender does not arise. If the document could be impounded or revoked, the circumstances are set out through clauses (a) to (h) of the Section. Of the various clauses, clauses (e) and (h) would require to be reproduced:- “(e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India. (h) if it is brought to the notice of the passport authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the passport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made.” Therefore circumstances do exist for impounding or revoking in the manner contemplated under sub Section 10 (3) if proceedings for commission of criminal offence are pending. Section 10 (5) deals with the procedure to be adopted before such an order varying or cancelling the passport or travel document is made. Section 10(5) is reproduced hereunder:- (5) Where the passport authority makes an order varying or cancelling the endorsements on, or varying the conditions of, a passport or travel document under sub-section (1) or an order impounding or revoking a passport or travel document under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing a brief statement of the reasons CWP No.6412 of 2011 4 for making such order and furnish to the holder of the passport or travel document on demand a copy of the same unless in any case, the passport authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India. friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public to furnish such a copy. 3. In a situation where a travel document is sought to be impounded the procedure under Section 10(5) must be read in such a way that the rule of natural justice is ingrained through that provision. That principle could be said to be satisfied only after serving a notice of such intention and calling upon the affected party to show cause against such revocation or impounding. Without going through the fundamental precept of principles of natural justice, the power to direct surrender of a document does not exist under the scheme of the passport. The impugned action is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 20 , 2011 archana