LAWS(DLH)-2006-5-208

JAMAL AJMAL SAIDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 09, 2006
JAMAL AJMAL SAIDI Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution claims directions to the respondents, for the release of his passport. He had been issued with a summons under Sections 37(1)(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter called 'FEMA') read with Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter called the 'IT Act') and asked to produce, his passport and two other documents. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 10-2-2006 the respondent impounded the passport.

(2.) The un-controverted facts required for determination of the points involved in this case are stated as follows. The petitioner claims to be a Consultant of long standing, advising and acting on behalf of various multinational companies. He alleges that his expertise lies in promoting business in Gulf countries. It is stated that he continues in that capacity, and has to frequently travel abroad. During the course of business, he has to act on behalf of his principals, both named, as well as unspecified.

(3.) In October, 2005, the media and various Newspapers carried reports relating to the Volcker Report, which had named several persons as recipients of favours, for facilitating the Iraqi 'Oil for Food' Programme. One Mr. Andleeb Sehgal and his concern, Hamdan Export were named. The respondents (hereinafter refereed to as 'Directorate') caused notices to be issued to the petitioner on 15-11-2005, requiring him to appear in its Offices. He was also asked to produce copy of his passport. It is not disputed that the petitioner was out of town; he was in Sudan. The notice was received by his wife, who communicated it to him. He reached New Delhi the next day, and presented himself, in compliance with the notice. It is alleged, and not controverted by the respondents that the petitioner was asked to surrender his passport to the respondent Directorate, which he did, on 17-11-2005. The latter did not issue any formal or written order, in justification of its action, and kept the passport.