Hussam-ud-din Ahmad vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of single Judge dated October 6, 1998 in OWP No. 362/89.

Petitioner is aggrieved by order No. JED/ C/402/6/85 dated February 26, 1986 passed by Consulate General of India at Jeddah (Saudi

Arabia) whereby passport bearing No. R-009573 has been impounded u/s 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967. This order apprised the

petitioner of his right to appeal to the Chief Passport Officer within 30 days.

Petitioner preferred representation which has been rejected after being treated as an appeal. Through the writ petition, petitioner challenged the

action on grounds that Consulate General of India has no authority to pass the impugned order since he is not vested with the powers of Passport

Officer and that the recitation in the order that the same has been passed by Government of India is not correct and that the petitioner was not

communicated copy of the same for preferring the appeal without which he could not exercise that right. And that the order is non-speaking and

passed without affording opportunity to the peti- tioner of being heard. And that the material on the basis of which impugned order has been

passed has not been made available to the petitioner. And that the passport cannot be impounded for an indefinite period.

Despite several opportunities, the respondents did not file objections however, official file was made available to the Court. After perusal of the

same in the context of grievance made by the petitioner, single Judge examined the question and found that the order impounding the passport u/s

10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967' was passed by the Passport Officer on July 19, 1983 which forms the basis of the further communication

addressed to the petitioner. Chief Passport Officer took up the matter on the appellate side and rejected the appeal on the ground that the

petitioner was engaging himself in activities considered objectionable and prejudicial to the security of the Country. Embassy at Jeddah had simply

communicated the order passed by the passport officer addressed to the petitioner that his passport stands impounded.

Single Judge found that petitioner deserves to be apprised of the material which formed he basis for passing order u/s 10(3)(e) of the Passport

Act, 1967, otherwise effective appeal cannot be made by him and in case, the material is not communicated, at least the file containing the material

be shown to him and that would meet the requirement of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs.

Union of India (UOI) and Another, . Consequently, the single Judge passed the following order:-

The appellate order is set aside. The petitioner would accordingly appear before the appellate authority on 30th November, 1998. On that date

or any other date to which the hearing is adjourned, the petitioner be apprised of the material which led to the impounding of his passport. This

would enable him to effectively pursue his appeal. The net result is that the appellate order shall stand quashed, leaving the appellate authority to

pass fresh order in accordance with law.

It be seen that the validity of the passport has since expired. The petitioner in any case has to get that passport renewed. The decision in the appeal

would also help the petitioner and the authorities in deciding the issue regarding re- newal/issuance of fresh passport.

We have examined the impugned order. We find that no better order than this could be passed in the facts and circumstances of this case. The

appellate order has been set aside and the petitioner has been extended opportunity to represent his case afresh before the appellate authority.

Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.