RAJIV TAYAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Orders dated 23rd August, 2005 and 30th August, 2005 passed by the Vice Consul, Consulate General of India, New York, USA. This order was passed on the directions of the respondent No.1, namely, the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi for impounding the passport of the petitioner. The other major prayer made in the writ petition challenges the Order dated 21st August, 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No.89/2003 under Section 406/498A IPC P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi declaring the petitioner as 'Proclaimed Offender'. The petitioner inter alia challenges the vires of the Section 10 (3)(e) &. (h) of Passport Act, 1967(herein after referred to as the 'Act') as well as the validity of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The Section 10 (3)(e) & (h) of the Act the validity of which is under .challenge in this petition reads as follows:- 10 Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents._ (e) if ;.proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India; (h) if it is brought to the notice of the passport authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the passport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made. In the present case it is not in dispute that at present a complaint vide FIR No.89/2003 under Section 406/498A IPC is pending against the petitioner and the chargesheet has been filed. The said complaint is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi wherein the petitioner has also been declared as ' Proclaimed Offender' by the order dated 21st August, 2004 impugned in this writ petition. It is also not in dispute that a warrant of arrest emanating from the above complaint exists at present against the petitioner.