Sudheer Sriram vs The Joint Secretary (PSP and CPO)

B.S. Patil, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to Annexure-A order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the 1st respondent.

By the said order, considering the serious nature of allegations leveled against the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ''CBI'') had not yet completed the investigation into the allegations made against the petitioner, the 1st respondent has continued the order passed earlier impounding the passport of the petitioner until investigation in the case was completed.

Main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order, the 1st respondent ought to have provided an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as, extension of the order impounding the passport for an indefinite period till the investigation was completed causes serious hardship and impairs the right of the petitioner.

As can be seen from the facts of the case pleaded in the writ petition and as is discernable form the records, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner for violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act and also the provisions of Indian Penal Code. CBI has been investigating the matter. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2009 impounding the passport, petitioner had earlier filed an appeal before the Appellate authority-1st respondent herein. 1st respondent upheld the order passed by the Passport Officer impounding the passport and ordered vide his order dated 17.01.2011 that the impounding of the passport may be continued until 31.03.2012. After the expiry of the outer limit fixed as 31.03.2012, present order is passed extending the operation of the order impounding the passport till the investigation in the case was completed.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such an order passed by the 1st respondent, without even affording an opportunity of being heard and without ensuring that the investigation is completed within a time frame, seriously affects the rights of the petitioner. He draws the attention of the Court to an order passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5151/2012 disposed of on 29.11.2012 to contend that in similar circumstances, the High Court of Delhi has issued certain directions for expediting the investigation and also ensuring that the order impounding the passport operates only for a limited duration.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents strongly resists the prayer made in the writ petition contending that serious allegations made against the petitioner have been under investigation and therefore, order impounding the passport may not be interfered with.

Having heard the learned counsel for all the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that Annexure-A order continuing the order impounding the passport is not preceded by an opportunity of being heard given to the petitioner. Petitioner must have an opportunity to put forward his grievance with regard to the extension of the order impounding the passport. Thought petitioner was heard at the time when the first order was passed impounding the passport, fact remains that the Appellate Authority, upon hearing the appellant, while dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Passport Authority impounding the passport, made it clear that the order impounding the passport may continue until 31.03.2012. Therefore, in order to extend the order to operate for further period, petitioner has to be heard in the matter. Further developments that might have taken place in the interregnum have to be also considered before passing an order extending the previous order impounding the passport. In that regard, the competent authority will have to also take note of the stand of the respondent-Authorities, particularly, the CBI with regard to the progress made in the investigation. It is advisable if the CBI expedites the investigation and binds itself to a time frame for completion of the investigation as otherwise it may result in serious injury and hardship to the petitioner. All these aspects have to be taken note of by the 1st respondent. However, in the interregnum, until a fresh order is passed by the 1st respondent, order impounding the passport has to continue to operate.

Therefore, for the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is allowed in part.

Impugned order Annexure-A is set aside. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent with a direction to provide an opportunity to the petitioner and pass a fresh order with regard to the extension or otherwise of the order impounding the passport of the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 19.05.2014. 1st respondent shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner and pass an order afresh within a period of three months thereafter. Until passing of such an order, the order passed impounding the passport of the petitioner shall continue to operate.