M NATARAJAN Vs. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arises for consideration is whether the petitioner's Passport being impounded by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai vide order dated 05.01.2012 is liable to be interfered with by this Court The petitioner was informed by the first respondent that his Passport vide No.Z1758388, dated 16.12.2008 valid till 15.12.2018 issued by his office was impounded under Section 10(3)(d) of the Passport Act, 1967 vide the order of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai made in C.C.No.6 of 2004, dated 26.07.2010 and the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2417 of 2008 in C.C.No.6 of 2004 and further vide order dated 11.8.2010 passed by this court in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2010 in Crl.A.No.476 of 2010 as forwarded by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to surrender his Passport. If the case referred therein was disposed of, the outcome of the case was directed to be intimated with certified copy of the court order for further process.

(2.) On receipt of the letter, the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 21.01.2012 through his counsel alleging that impounding of Passport was against the provisions of law including the Passport Act. It was the denial of right of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and such a right cannot be deprived except by the procedure established by law. It was stated by the petitioner that he had been invited by the World Forum Federation to be held at St. Catherine's College, Oxford, England from 28.08.2012 to 02.09.2012. He had already arranged the Air tickets for his travel starting from Chennai on 22.08.2012 and to return to Chennai on 04.09.2012 by traveling in Emirates Airline. The tour programme of the petitioner was also arranged by the Organizer. A copy of the same has been enclosed in the typed set.

(3.) It was stated by the petitioner that he had earlier worked in the State Government in the Information Department. He is the editor of a Tamil Fortnightly "Puthiya Parvai". He is also a social worker and had written many books. He had a wide circle of friends and had visited several meetings and other places throughout the World with respect to his magazine. He had stated that he was implicated in an offence with three other persons. He was convicted by the Special Judge for CBI cases in C.C.No.6 of 2004 on 26.07.2010. His conviction was for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner had preferred a criminal appeal before this court being Crl.A.No.476 of 2010. In Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2010, the sentence of imprisonment was suspended pending appeal with a condition that the petitioner should execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for CBI Cases and with a further condition that he should report before the court once in three months on the first working day until further orders. It was stated by the petitioner that subsequently, he had moved an application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 seeking for relaxing the condition stating that he is being punctually obeyed the condition and that he could not appear before the court on 1.7.2011. This court by an order dated 27.6.2011 had relaxed the condition of appearance before the Special Judge for CBI Cases only on 1.7.2011. During which period he had to travel abroad and had not given any room for any breach of the conditions imposed. Therefore, it was contended by him that impounding of Passport at this stage was invalid. The principles of natural justice have not been followed an no notice was issued to him prior to impounding of the Passport. It was stated that the term "moral turpitude" under Section 10(3)(d) has not been defined and therefore, the provisions of law should not be invoked. Since the petitioner's conviction is pending in an appeal and the conviction has not become final, the order impounding the Passport under Section 10(3)(d) cannot be valid.