IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 74 of 2004 Between: G. Nagender, S/o G. Madhav, R/o 11-3-386/1/C/3, Srinivasa Nagar, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Passport Office, D.No.8-2-215 to 219, Adjacent to Prashant Theatre, Kummaraguda, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in revoking the Passport by letter dated 19-11-2003 without notice is illegal, arbitrary and constitutional and further direct the Respondents to renew and issue Passport No.!355731 to the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.G.JHANSI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears for the respondents. 2. Petitioner questions the letter issued by the Regional Passport Officer – second respondent dated 19.11.2003 in revoking his passport bearing No.Q355731 dated 26.08.1993 vide letter dated 09.12.2003 based on the complaint said to have been received from the Commissioner of Police – first respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid passport has been issued to him in 1993 for a period of ten years and in 1997 he left for Singapore to work with M/s. Asia Novasoft Technology Private Limited and stayed there for about three years. He submits that after coming down to India the Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Branch, SBCID inquired about him employment details at abroad and asked him to handover his passport. Accordingly, he handed over his passport to him at Commissioner’s Office on 21.01.2001. Thereafter, the impugned order has been issued revoking his passport without giving any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity. 4. Counter has been filed stating that for obtaining employment on a fake B.Tech certificate at Singapore, the Singapore authorities have prosecuted the petitioner and the concerned Court convicted him to undergo imprisonment for a period of four weeks, further the Singapore authorities banned petitioner’s entry for a period of two years and directed him to leave Singapore within a period of one week vide letter dated 10.11.2003. It is stated that the petitioner has not revealed the reason for leaving Singapore and thereafter, on the communication received from the Commissioner of Police, the passport has been revoked by the Passport authorities by order dated 09.12.2003. No counter has been filed by the Commissioner of Police. 5. A perusal of the letter dated 09.12.2003 revoking the passport on 19.11.2003 goes to show that the Commissioner of the Police made a complaint, but it is not known as to what was the complaint and no reference has been made in the impugned order. The revocation of passport is traceable under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’). Under Section 10(3) of the Act the passport authority may revoke a passport if the authority is satisfied that the holder of the passport is in wrongful possession thereof and the passport has been obtained on suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information and if the passport holder has been convicted by a Court in India. But the impugned letter does not disclose any of the aforementioned reasons for revoking the passport except stating that on the basis of some complaint received from the Commissioner of Police, the passport has been revoked. I am of the opinion that the impugned letter for revocation of passport does not satisfy the ingredients under Section 10(3) of the Act. Though the passport issued to the petitioner has expired, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the impugned letter is set aside the petitioner may not be able to obtain a fresh passport. 6. As the impugned letter is without giving any notice and without assigning any reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned letter is set aside directing the first respondent to return the passport of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it is kept open to the respondents to take appropriate action again in accordance with law, if they are so advised. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J March 31, 2008 DSK