Jomon Nallaveetil vs Union Of India

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to initiate any proceedings pursuant to Exhibit-P2 Notice issued by the 2nd respondent.

ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit-P2 issued by the 2nd Respondent.

iii. To issue such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case.

(SIC)

According to the petitioner, he is employed as a driver in a marketing and sales company in Sharjah, and is the sole breadwinner of the family. The petitioner was having an Indian Passport bearing No.K6454744. The passport was issued on 13.03.2013 and it was about to expire on 12.03.2023. Therefore the petitioner preferred an application for re-issuance of passport on 12.11.2022 by tatkal before the Regional Passport Office, Kozhikode. The petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent on 17.11.2022 and the 2nd respondent dispatched a new passport bearing number W6562604 to the petitioner on the basis of the application preferred before him. Subsequently the petitioner received Ext.P2 show cause notice under Sections 10(3)b and 12(1)b of the Passports Act, 1967, stating that the petitioner is required to furnish a proper explanation regarding the circumstances under which the petitioner suppressed the material information regarding the pendency of Crime No.723/2017 of Mananthavady Police Station, which is now pending as C.C.No.431/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 show-cause notice.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. I also heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that as evident by Ext.P3, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady already exempted the petitioner from personal appearance in that case. The counsel submitted that if the passport is impounded in consequent to Ext.P2 show-cause notice, the livelihood of the petitioner will be affected. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to obtain necessary orders from the court concerned also for renewal of the passport, if necessary. The DSGI, on the other hand, submitted that Ext.P2 is only a show-cause and the petitioner already submitted Ext.P4 and the same will be considered in accordance to law.

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. Admittedly Ext.P2 is only a show-cause notice. The apprehension of the petitioner is that if the Passport Authority impound the passport based on Ext.P2, the livelihood of the petitioner will be affected. The petitioner relied on several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court to substantiate his case that simply because the case is pending before the criminal court, that itself is not a reason to impound the passport. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Admittedly Ext.P2 is a show-cause notice. The petitioner is free to raise all his contentions before the Passport Authority. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P4 explanation to Ext.P2 notice. There can be a direction to the Passport Authority to give an opportunity of hearing also to the petitioner or his representative before passing final orders. If any order is passed adverse to the petitioner based on Ext.P2 show-cause notice, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, I think the implementation of the same can be deferred for a period of one month from the date of delivery of that order to the petitioner, so that the petitioner can approach the appropriate authority in accordance to law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

Before passing final orders based on Ext.P2 show-cause notice, the 2nd respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative, and also will consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4 explanation.

If the final order passed based on Ext.P2 is against the petitioner, the implementation of the same shall be deferred for a period of one month from the date of delivery of that order to the petitioner so that the petitioner can take appropriate steps in accordance to law.

I make it clear that such an order is passed taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and this need not be treated as a precedent.