NIYAS ABDUL KHAREEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a citizen of India. He was working in Maldives. The term of his passport expired while he was in Maldives. The petitioner, therefore, applied for re -issue of his passport at the High Commission of India at Maldives. On the said application, the petitioner was issued a new passport on 25.4.2011. Later, the third respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram received a letter from the wife of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is an accused in three criminal cases and that therefore, his passport is liable to be impounded. On the said letter of the wife of the petitioner, the Passport Officer called for remarks from the concerned police officers and it was found that the petitioner is accused in three cases. Consequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to show cause why his passport shall not be impounded. Ext.P4 is the show cause notice. It is alleged in Ext.P4 that the petitioner had suppressed material information in the application for reissue of passport. It is also alleged that the petitioner's passport is liable to be impounded under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act ('the Act' for short). The petitioner has submitted a reply to Ext.P4 show cause notice contending mainly that he has not suppressed any material facts in his application for re -issue of passport. According to him, criminal cases were registered against him only after the re -issue of the passport. As per Ext.P9, the Passport Officer rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner and ordered to impound the passport of the petitioner under Section 10(3) (e) of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging Ext.P9 order contending that he has not suppressed any material facts in the matter of getting his passport reissued. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the appellate authority as per Ext.P3 order. In Ext.P3, it is stated, among others, that since it is admitted that there are criminal cases against the petitioner, the action of the Passport Officer in impounding the passport of the petitioner under Section 10 (3)(e) of the Act is in order. It was, however, made clear in Ext.P3 order by the appellate authority that the petitioner is free to approach the concerned criminal courts and if the petitioner is able to obtain permission from the said courts to go abroad, he will be issued a fresh passport. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the statement, it is contended, among others, that since criminal cases are admittedly pending against the petitioner, the Passport Officer has got the power to impound the passport issued to the petitioner.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Solicitor General.