1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7677 OF 2006 Firoz Gulam Hussain Merchant ..Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Others ..Respondents. Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar with Mr.S.N. Kantawala for the petitioner. Mr.R.F. Lambay, Mr.H.V. Mehta, M.S. Bhardwaj & Mr.Afroz Shah i/by T.C. Kaushik for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.A.H. Palekar, AGP for respondent No.4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 15TH JULY, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Warunjikar in support of this petition, Mr.Lambey, learned Central Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 & Mr.Palekar, AGP appearing for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner herein seeks to challenge order dated 24-8-2006 passed by the Public Relation Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, whereby the passports of the petitioner mentioned in that order came to be revoked. That order has been confirmed 2 in an appeal after hearing the petitioner by subsequent order of the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs passed on 6-11-2006. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had one passport earlier issued from Hyderabad bearing No.E-870991 dated 21-11-1988. It was renewed on 15-4-1998 with additional booklet issued on 28-2-2005. It is his further case that he wanted to go to Israel and if one visits the Arab countries which he was otherwise visiting, one is not allowed to enter Israel and for that purpose, under Rule 13 of the Passport Rules, separate issue of passport for Israel is permitted. He took said passport on 28-2-1989 and in lieu thereof, another passport is issued on 13-7-1998. He took third passport on 16-2-1999 for going to the Arab countries. Obviously, said passports could not have been obtained. It is his case that it was bonafide mistake on his part. He is having a chain of establishment in the middle east as well as in India for which purpose he is required to go to various countries. 4. It appears that the Officers of the Passport Office having detected issuance of such passport, issued the impugned order. It was 3 claimed by the petitioner that at the highest under Section 10(3)(b), two passports subsequently issued could have been revoked and not the first passport. The petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney V/s. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport officer, New Delhi and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836 and claimed that right to travel abroad is a part of one of the fundamental rights. 5. This Court passed interim order dated 11-1-2007 by which the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in this Court. The petitioner was also directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai and the Court continued the interim order passed on 12-12-2006, whereby the petitioner was permitted to travel on the basis of first passport bearing No.Z-1205722 with additional booklet No.Z-1263922 (which is in lieu of the original passport issued on 21-11-1988). Thus, by interim order the petitioner got the original passport issued to him. 6. Additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in this petition dated 14-7-2008. Para 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(e) of that 4 affidavit are relevant. They read as under : "2. I say that the brief facts of the case are as hereunder - (a) On the allegations that the petitioner obtained three passports, and while obtaining the later two passports suppressed the material information of having previous valid passport, the department issued a Show cause Notice dated 17-7-2006, proposing action against the petitioner under section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and also proposing the revocation u/s.10(3)(b) of the Act, of Passport Nos.F-290407 dated 28-2-1989 (with Additional Booklet no.A-5934339 dt. 13-7-1998 in lieu thereof), A-7299898 dt. 16-2-1999 and Z-1205722 dt. 15-4-1998 (along with Additional Booklet No.Z-1263922 dt. 28-2-2005 in lieu thereof) obtained by the petitioner. (b) I say that vide order dated 24-8-2006, although the action under section 12(1)(b) was not contemplated, the aforesaid Passports were revoked under section 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 6-11-2006. (c) These two orders dated 24-8-2006 and 6-11-2006, were challenged before this Hon’ble Court by the petitioner in the above Civil Writ Petition no.7677 of 2006. Vide order dated 12-12-2006, the additional booklet of his first passport, bearing no.Z-1263922 dt. 28-2-2005 was restored by this Hon’ble Court against security, however, liberty was granted to the department to apply for modification / vacating the order in the event of detection of any misuse, and to forfeit the security amount in such event. (d) ----------- (e) I say that since no misuse of any revoked passports (which as claimed by the petitioner were issued for visiting Israel) was detected, no application was moved either for 5 modification or for vacating the order dtd. 12-12-2006, in the petitioner’s case. Similarly, no misuse of revoked passports of his wife was detected. Further steps were taken by informing all immigration authorities regarding revocation of the passports to plug any chance whatsoever of the misuse of the revoked passports". 7. In para 3 and 4 of the said Affidavit, the Deponent has stated thus : "3. I say that the limited question now is whether the additional booklet of petitioner’s first passport, bearing no.Z-1263922 dt. 28-2-2005, restored vide order dated 12-12-2006 of this Hon’ble Court, shall be again revoked to permanently curtail his possibility of travelling abroad, or whether the order dated 12-12-2006 of this Hon’ble Court restoring the said passport, shall be made absolute with or without imposition of penalties. 4. I say that the first passport in lieu of which the restored additional booklet bearing no.Z-1263922 dt. 28-2-2005 was issued, did not involve any suppression or mis-declaration of material information. I say that there is no dispute that Right to Travel is a fundamental right, however the petitioner is liable to be penalized for his acts of omission and commission, and suppression of facts under Rule 10(3)(b). Therefore, in case the petitioner is allowed to permanently retain the passport no.Z-1263922 dt. 28-2-2005, the same may only be allowed subject to imposition of penalties upon him." 8. In our opinion, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, which is in operation and the additional affidavit filed in this Court, referred to above, following order would meet the 6 ends of justice. a) The petitioner will continue to use passport No.Z-1263922 dated 28-2-2005 with a right to seek renewal in accordance with law. b) The authorities - respondents shall continue to hold the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, which is deposited by the petitioner with them pursuant to the interim orders passed in this writ petition. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited in this Court shall also be transferred by the Registrar General with accruals, if any to the Authorities. c) Both these amounts shall be held by the authorities for a period of one year. d) If no incidence of violation of any law in regard to the passport, number of which is mentioned above is reported, the authorities shall refund the amount after deducting an amount of Rs.10,000/- as penalty. 7 e) In case any violation of law in relation to the passport is reported, the authorities shall be entitled to take action in accordance with law and also make orders in relation to the amount which are in deposit with them. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of this order. No costs. D.K. DESHMUKH, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.