Solanki Kundu vs Union Of India And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.

Heard the respective parties.

The present grievance revolves around a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 10.

It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 10, being the husband of the petitioner, remarried and fled to a foreign country with a person with whom he committed bigamy and is now outside India.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a complaint has been specifically lodged by the petitioner against the respondent no. 10 long back, and charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of the First Information Report registered against the respondent no. 10, including the charge of bigamy, as well as offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the passport authorities, despite having assured the petitioner that they have taken steps pursuant to her complaint for impounding the passport of the respondent no. 10 in view of a warrant of personal appearance having been issued against the respondent no. 10, the passport authorities are sitting tight over the matter.

Leaned counsel for the petitioner relies on Section 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act, 1967 to impress upon the court that, in the event it is brought to the notice to the passport authorities that a warrant of arrest of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a court under any law, the passport authorities may impound or cause to be impounded or revoked the passport or travel document of the accused.

Learned counsel appearing for the passport authorities submits that it is the discretion on the part of the said authorities to impound the passport of the accused and/or revoke the same or not, even under Clause (h) of sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the 1967 Act.

It is further submitted that Clause (h) itself envisages that there can be an order made by the court on which the passport authorities might act and impound or revoke the passport-in-question.

In this context, it is submitted by learned counsel for the passport authorities that no such order was obtained by the petitioner from the court.

It appears from the annexures to the present writ petition that the petitioner is justified in submitting that the passport authorities have the power to impound or revoke a passport or travel document in case of a warrant of arrest/ personal appearance being issued, and that in the present case, the passport authorities themselves intimated the petitioner that action has already been initiated against the respondent no. 10 by their office as per extant guidelines. Subsequently, a show cause notice was also issued to the respondent no. 10, an answer to which is annexed as Annexure- P/10 at page- 71 of the instant writ petition.

However, in the event a mandatory direction is given at this premature stage on the passport authorities to revoke or impound the passport of the respondent no. 10 on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner, it can be opening the flood-gate too wide, since then merely at the drop of a hat, it would be open to the passport authorities and to other similar authorities to impinge upon the personal liberty of citizens of India.

However, this court ought not to go into such an extent on the merits of the case, since a mere direction on the passport authorities to intimate the final decision under Section 10(3)(h) of the 1967 Act to the petitioner would suffice, as the power of impounding or revocation of passports falls within the discretion of the said authorities.

Accordingly, W. P. No. 24131(W) of 2019 is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 7 to intimate to the petitioner as to the decision of the said authority on the application of the petitioner for impounding/revocation of the passport of respondent no. 10, under Section 10(3)(h) of the 1967 Act, within a fortnight from date.

It is made clear that, in the event there is any further grievance of the petitioner after receiving such communication, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Magistrate for a further order seeking an order of impoundment/revocation and/or to approach this Court in the event the discretion is not exercised in accordance with law by the respondent no. 7.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities