IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26061 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SAEED MOHAMMED, S/O.MOHAMMED, MADATHIL HOUSE, MUNAMBATH, MATTATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 528. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA, ADV. SMT.GOVINDA P.RENUKADEVI, CGC. R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 26061 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE FORM DATED 22/5/2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PORT REGISTRATION OFFICE, CALICUT AIRPORT. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.118 OF 2010. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26061 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he was issued passport NO.9184574 from the office of the 1st respondent. The passport was renewed on 2/6/2010. It is stated that when the petitioner came to India on 22/5/11, the same was seized as per Ext.P1 on the ground that the petitioner is the third accused in a crime evidenced by Ext.P2 F.I.R. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed seeking release of the passport. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent on instruction submits that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case, show cause notice was issued to him on 11/8/2010 and that an order of impounding was passed on 20/1/11. It is also submitted that the said order was communicated to the petitioner. 3. Now that such an order of impounding remains in force, the order seizing the passport as per Ext.P1 cannot be faulted and the remedy available to the petitioner is to file appeal against the order of impounding invoking the appellate remedy WPC No. 26061/11 :2 : under Section 11 of the Passports Act. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy available, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp