IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 1324 of 2009(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DR.V.R.SANAL KUMAR, EX SCIENTIST/ENGINEER 'SD' VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.NOW RESIDING AT "VALSALAYAM" AYROOR NORTH P.O. THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST, KERALA. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, C.P.V.DIVISION, PATTIALA HOUSE ANNEX,THILAK MARG,NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. CHAIRMAN,INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION, BANGALORE-94. 3. THE CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, C.P.V.DIVISION, PATTIALA HOUSE ANNEX.,THILAK MARG.NEW DELHI-110001 4. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, (ESTABLISHMENT SECTION)VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL BY ADV. MR.P.P.PADMALAYAN, C.G.C MR.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN,SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).1324/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P16, P21, P22 and P25, Ext.P16 is a seizure memo, seizing the passport belonging to the petitioner, on him arriving at the Indira Gandhi International Airport at New Delhi returning from South Korea. Ext.P16 refers to earlier proceedings by which the petitioner's passport was impounded. Therefore, petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent appellate authority under the Passports Act and this resulted in Ext.P21 order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal and affirming the decision not to revoke the order by which the petitioner's passport was impounded. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition No.17423/2008 and this Court had directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's plea. This resulted in Ext.P25 order and therefore, Ext.P25 has also been challenged in the writ petition. W.P.(C).1324/09 2 2. Petitioner was working as Scientist in the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre. While so, as evidenced by Ext.P8, he was awarded Post Doctoral Fellowship, 2003 for 12 months from 15.1.2004 to 14.1.2005. He had to spend the fellowship in South Korea. He applied for leave. But such leave was not granted. It seems that the petitioner then decided to proceed. Therefore, he went to South Korea and completed his fellowship. In the meanwhile finding that the petitioner has left the country and abandoned his job, disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and now it is admitted that he was dismissed from service as well. But in the meanwhile, VSSC had sought for repatriation of the petitioner and also to get his passport impounded. It is their case that the petitioner was holding a sensitive post and therefore, there were reasons why he could not be given leave to permit him to work abroad or travel abroad, as the same, according to them, would affect the security of the nation. W.P.(C).1324/09 3 3. As could be seen from Ext.P20, which is the communication from the Passport Officer deciding to impound the petitioner's passport, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.6.2004 and the same was returned undelivered with postal remark “Addressee left, present address not known” and it is this decision which has been affirmed in Ext.P21. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except for a vague allegation that the petitioner if allowed to retain his passport and stay out of India would constitute a security breach, no details have been afforded either by the VSSC or found by the Passport Officer or by the appellate authority, either in Ext.P20 order or in Ext.P21 order. Show cause notice referred to in Ext.P20 has also not been placed on record, it is contended. He contends that therefore no specific facts, as to why petitioner if permitted to go abroad would constitute a security risk for the country, have been either supplied to the petitioner or otherwise found in Exts.P20 or P21 order. W.P.(C).1324/09 4 5. Learned counsel for the VSSC submits that, on the other hand, petitioner was holding a sensitive post in VSSC and it was therefore not possible to relieve him from his duties. That is why leave was not sanctioned to him. In these circumstances, there are reasons why the petitioner's passport should continue to be impounded. 6. I heard learned counsel on both sides. I have perused the impugned orders as well. 7. Impounding the passport of a citizen is a serious act and therefore, it cannot be lightly dealt with by the authorities under the Passport Act, as the Supreme Court has held in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 (1) SCC 248). If the impounding of a passport is illegal, then refusal to issue a passport would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Ext.P20 does not refer to the specific reason as to why the authority decided that impounding of the W.P.(C).1324/09 5 petitioner's passport is necessary. Ext.P21 appellate order merely affirms the view taken by the VSSC that there is a security risk if the petitioner is allowed to retain his passport. As to what actually constitutes the security risk or as to why the petitioner should not be permitted to travel abroad, is not discernible either from Ext.P20 or Ext.P21. Further, the show cause notice referred to in Ext.P20 has also not been placed on record. More over, it is the admitted case that the petitioner was actually abroad when the show cause notice dated 25.6.2004 was issued and he therefore, was not served with the same. He did not get an opportunity to defend the show cause notice. In other words, order by which the petitioner's passport has been impounded was not preceded by an effective opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. As I stated above, the act of impounding the passport of a citizen is a serious one and merits serious consideration. It will have to be preceded by a proper notice, opportunity of hearing and a serious consideration of the relevant aspects should be reflected in the order containing reasons that will W.P.(C).1324/09 6 satisfy the requirements of the statute and the Constitution. 9. For all these reasons I am of the view that the competent authority will have to decide afresh whether the petitioner's passport is liable to be impounded under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act. 10. I therefore quash Exts.P20 and P21. 4th respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, shall issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner specifically stating the reasons on the basis of which the petitioner's passport is sought to be impounded. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the VSSC to forward any material on the basis of which, they consider that the petitioner's passport is liable to be impounded and copy of such material shall also be made available to the petitioner. If the Passport Officer thinks it is appropriate to rely on such material, then he shall specifically indicate the same in his show cause notice. Petitioner shall be given at least, four weeks time to reply to the show W.P.(C).1324/09 7 cause notice. Thereafter, a reasoned order shall be passed by the 4th respondent, after hearing the petitioner or his authorized representative. The entire procedure as outlined above, shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In circumstances where the impounding of the passport and the appellate powers in relation to the same can be exercised only by the competent authority under the Passports Act, all that requires to be said in relation to Ext.P25 is that it shall have no independent consequences. It is so declared. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs