JATINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a constable in the Punjab Police. He applied for and obtained Ex-India Leave from 19/5/2017 to 5/6/2017 from the O/o Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur. On 20/5/2017, when he was about to board the flight to London at the International Airport, Amritsar, his passport issued on 21/6/2016 was impounded without giving any satisfactory reason. On 23/5/2017, the petitioner approached the Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar for reasons for impounding the passport and he was informed orally that the same was done on receipt of orders from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India through communication dtd. 8/11/2017. The petitioner thus filed CWP No.3328 of 2018 for quashing order dtd. 8/11/2017 and a detailed parawise reply was filed thereto. It was submitted that the petitioner had concealed the issuance of a passport dtd. 30/6/2005 and that the same was the reason for impounding of his passport. Vide order dtd. 22/4/2019, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider a fresh application to be filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. On receipt of the fresh application, order dtd. 12/9/2019 was passed rejecting the same on the ground of issuance of letter dtd. 8/11/2017 by the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs. It is to be noted that the letter dtd. 8/11/2017 mentioned receipt of information from un-named sources that the petitioner could be involved in smuggling illegal immigrants into Europe since 2003 resulting in compromising the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, as the reason for impounding the passport.

(2.) A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the Union of India and the Ministry of External Affairs. It has been mentioned therein that the Indian Embassy in France had received information from the French Authorities that an anonymous source had informed them that the petitioner could be involved in smuggling illegal immigrants into Europe since 2003. This was brought to the notice of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) who addressed communication dtd. 18/10/2016 to the Ministry of Home Affairs as well as the Ministry of External Affairs. The Ministry of External Affairs consequently issued a communication dtd. 16/3/2017 to the Passport Officer, Amritsar to take appropriate action in accordance with The Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and The Passport Manual, 2016 who further communicated the same to the Passport Officer, Jalandhar vide communication dtd. 11/5/2017. Thus, on account of suspicion that the petitioner was involved in trafficking of human beings into Europe, the passport was impounded. Another reason given is that the petitioner had been issued five passports from 2000 to 2016 but he had disclosed issuance of only four passports in the writ petition. Thus, he is guilty of suppression of information.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that action of impounding of passport has been taken on the basis of suspicion only. A period of five years has elapsed since the passing of the impugned order but no material information has been placed on record to show that the respondents are in possession of credible and tangible evidence that the petitioner was involved in trafficking of human beings in Europe. Thus, Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Act is not attracted.