IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.65526/2016 (GM-PASS) BETWEEN:
KRISHNA MUNIVENKATAPPA @ KRISHNA M AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA, NO.263, 6TH A CROSS, 15TH MAIN, RMV I STAGE, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080 (BY SRI S GANESH SHENOY, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PATIALA HOUSE ANNEXE, NEW DELHI-110 001 HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 80 FEET ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 095 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KRISHNA S DIXIT, ASG) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED IMPOUNDING OF THE PETITIONER'S PASSPORT (RENEWED ON 26.03.2010 VIDE NO.Z2021820 (FILE NO.BNGH00570510 AND THE SAME IS VALID AND DUE FOR RENEWAL ON 25.03.2020) VIDE ANNEX-J DATED 25.05.2016.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 25.05.2016 at Annexure-J to the petition, whereunder the passport issued to the petitioner is ordered to be impounded.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that such action initiated by the respondents is not justified. Firstly, it is the case of the petitioner that the said order is passed without opportunity to the petitioner. Secondly, it is the contention of the petitioner that criminal proceedings relating to which reference has been made in the order impugned cannot be the basis to impound the passport inasmuch as this Court in Crl.P.No.5640/2015 dated 03.10.2016 has stayed the further proceedings in the said case and therefore it cannot be construed that there was suppression of facts as alleged therein. In that view, it is contended that the action of the respondents would not be justified and therefore the order of impounding is liable to be set aside.
3. Respondents have filed their objection statement. Reference is made to Section 10(3)(h) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967, (‘the Act’ for short) whereunder the power is available to the competent officer to pass order to impound the passport even when summons is issued in a criminal case, let alone the pendency of the criminal proceedings. In that view, it is contended that the order passed is in accordance with the provisions of law.
4. Insofar as the contention that no opportunity has been granted, it is pointed out by the learned ASG that the very documents produced by the petitioner along with the petition would disclose that the petitioner had put forth the explanation and on taking note of the same, the order has been ultimately passed. In that view, it is contended that the prayer as made in the instant petition at this point would not arise herein.
competent officer would have the power to impound the passport. It is no doubt true that as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Anand Tewari –vs- Union of India and Others -2013 SCC Online Delhi 3734, such impounding need not be done in all cases, but the emphasis therein is also that the Passport Officer can pass such orders when there are reasons to do so.
6. If that be the position, the power no doubt could be exercised by the competent officer. If this aspect is kept in view, in the instant facts, even if the contention of the petitioner that there was no suppression of facts is accepted, the fact that a proceedings in C.C.No.20426/2012 is pending consideration before the Court having jurisdiction to do so is the accepted position. In that light if the provision as referred to is kept in view and when the jurisdictional Court is seized of the matter, whether the impounding as made should be continued and whether the petitioner should be permitted to travel abroad, are all issues which would have to be considered in the said proceedings so as to enable the jurisdictional Court to regulate the same. As such, this Court in that circumstance would not be justified in granting the prayer made herein.
7. However, the petitioner should be reserved the liberty to file appropriate application in the criminal proceedings either before the Court having jurisdiction or in the revision petition which is stated to be pending before this Court. If such application is filed therein, the need or otherwise to permit the petitioner to travel or any direction to be issued to the Passport Officer would be considered therein. In that regard, all contentions of the parties are left open.
With the above said liberty, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms