Edvin Merwin Hurtis vs The Regional Passport Officer

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—Heard Mr. N. Surya Senthil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 and Mr. K. Mohanamurali, learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent.

The Petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Lookout Circular dated 19.9 2014 issued by the Fourth Respondent and to direct the 5th Respondent to return the illegally seized Passport bearing No.z2235366.

The Petitioner is working at Qatar since 2002. He landed in Kozhikode International Airport, Kerala State from Qatar on 24.9.2014 to see his ailing mother, who is residing at Kozhikode The Petitioner''s Passport was impounded and subsequently handed over to the Fifth Respondent-Police. On enquiry, the Petitioner came to know that it was pursuant to a case registered in Crime No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Fifth Respondent-Police for alleged offence under Sections 498-A & 506(i), IPC based on the Complaint lodged by Petitioner''s wife-Mrs Rekha. It appears that there is a Matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner and his wife and H.M.O.P No 1245 of 2010 is pending on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai. The Petitioner is being represented by his paternal uncle as authorised Power of Attorney and he is appearing before the Court regularly.

According to the Petitioner, the Complaint given against him by his wife is false and it is only with a mala fide intention to somehow arrest the Petitioner and detain him. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, the Passport Authority may impound or cause to be impounded a Passport under certain circumstances. Section 10(3) of the Act, It is submitted that the case on hand is not covered by any of the contingencies stipulated in Clause (a) to (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passport Act. It is further submitted that it is only for the Regional Passport Officer to take action if the Petitioner''s case comes under anyone of the said categories. Therefore, the Petitioner is be fore this Court by way of this Writ Petition.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent submitted that based on a Complaint given, the Immigration officials, Calicut International Airport has given appropriate instructions and Lookout Circular was issued and pursuant to which, the Fifth Respondent has seized the Passport.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 submitted that based on the Lookout Circular issued by the Immigration Officials, Calicut International Airport that the Passport is being impounded.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, the legal issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra and has been considered by this Court in several decisions and it would suffice to refer the decision in the case of Arockia Jeyabalan v. The Regional Passport Officer and others, W.P. Nos. 18637 & 22205 of 2014, dated 15.9.2014. In the said case also, the identical issue arose for consideration.

This Court after taking into consideration the statutory provisions more particularly Section 10(3) of the Act pointed out that if the cases not covered by any of the contingencies stipulated in Clause (a) to (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passport Act, then the Lookout Circular itself is unsustainable and the question the Passport does not arise, accordingly, the said Writ Petition was allowed.

The case on hand is squarely covered by the earlier decisions and following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondent-Police is directed to return the Passport to the Petitioner forthwith Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

M.P. No.2 of 2015 in W.P. No.6652 of 2015

10.4.2015

(1) This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to clarify the Order dated 13.3.2015 passed in W.P. No.6652 of 2015.

(2) Learned Counsel for the Fourth Respondent seeks tune for getting instructions from the Fourth Respondent.

(3) As this Petition has been filed only the clarify the Order already made on 13.3.2015, for quashing the Lookout Circular issued by the Fourth Respondent, the question of filing Counter Affidavit does not arise.

(4) In my view, no such clarification is required. For better appreciation, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is extracted below :

"...to issue a Writ of Certiforarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction in the nature of such Writ calling for the records of the Lookout Circular issued by the 4th Respondent and quash the same and further direct the 5th Respondent to return the illegally seized Passport bearing No.z2235366 to the Petitioner forthwith..."

(5) By virtue of the aforesaid prayer, the Petitioner sought for quashing the Lookout Circular and consequentially for return Passport This Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel and the learned Additional Government Pleader, allowed the Writ Petition as prayed for The operative portion of the order reads as follows:

"5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent submitted that based on a Complaint given, the Immigration officials, Calicut International Airport has given appropriate instructions and Lookout Circular was issued and pursuant to which, the Fifth Respondent has seized the Passport.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 submitted that based on the Lookout Circular issued by the Immigration Officials, Calicut International Airport that the Passport is being impounded.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, the legal issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res Integra and has been considered by this Court is several decisions and it would suffice to refer the decision in the case of Arockia Jeyabalan v. The Regional Passport Officer and others, W.P. Nos. 18637 & 22205 of 2014, dated 15.9.2014. In the said case also, the identical issue arose for consideration.

This Court after taking into consideration the statutory provisions more particularly Section 10(3) of the Act pointed out that if the cases not covered by any of the contingencies stipulated in Clause (a) to (li) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passport Act, then the Lookout Circular itself is unsustainable and the question the Passport does not arise, accordingly, the said Writ Petition was allowed.

The case on hand is squarely covered by the earlier decisions and following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondent-Police is directed to return the Passport to the Petitioner forthwith. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed No costs "

(6) In the light of the Order passed by this Court dated 13.3 2015, the Writ Petition having been allowed and the Lookout Circular has already been quashed, the question of clarifying the Order does not arise.

The Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.