S. No. 46 Regular list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 282/2023 CM(574/2023) MUHEET AHMAD BUTT …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate with Mr. Bhat Shafi, Advocate. Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS NEW DELHI ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with Mr. Faizan Ahmad Ganie, CGC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 03.02.2025 (Oral):- 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- I. By a writ of Certiorari: A. The show cause notice bearing reference no. SCW 322137714/23 dated 31.01.2023 may be quashed. B. The communication bearing reference No. IMP/322140552/23 dated 01.02.2023 may also be quashed. II. By a writ of Mandamus: A. The respondents restrained from taking any action against the petitioner in terms of Section 10 and Section 12 of the Passports Act. The Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue such other writ, direction or order in favour of the petitioner and against the as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and of the case. 2. The facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed and as are averred in the writ petition are that the respondent 2 herein issued a show cause notice bearing no. SCN/322137714/23 dated 31st January 2023 to the petitioner herein calling upon him to explain the circumstances under which material information in the process of seeking passport under passport application No. SGRA 02001312 dated 19th June 2012 has been suppressed, warranting initiation of an action under Section 10 (3) (c) read with Section 12(1) (b) of the Passport Act of 1967 (for short ‘the Act of 1967’). The said notice is stated to have been followed by another notice bearing no. IMP/322140552/23 dated 1st February 2023 intimating therein the petitioner that the passport issued in his favour bearing No. K5579061 is decided to be impounded, requiring the petitioner to surrender the passport with immediate effect 3. It is stated that the petitioner received the notice dated 31st January 2023 through registered post on 3rd February 2023 as the said notice had been dispatched from the post office on 2nd February 2023 by the respondent 2. 4. The petitioner has challenged the process of impounding of the passport issued in his favour by the respondent validly and legally in the instant petition on multiple grounds fundamentally on the ground that the passport in question came to be impounded without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondent wherein the petition is being opposed and its dismissal is being sought while stating that the petitioner had applied for a passport vide file No. SGRA02001312 dated 07th May 2012 and that in this regard a verification of character antecedents of petitioner was sought from the Inspector General of Police (CID) in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act of 1967 being a mandatory requirement, and, upon receipt of report thereof on 28th June 2012, the passport in question came to be issued in favour of petitioner on 19th June 2012. However, upon receipt of a subsequent report from the Special Director General of Police (CID) on 7th December 2022 being a report adverse to the petitioner, a show cause notice seeking clarification from the petitioner was issued to the petitioner, and consequently the passport of the petitioner came to be impounded under Section 10(3) (c) of the Act of 1967 6. It is being further stated that the petitioner did not responded to the letter dated 1st February 2023 as also subsequent letter dated 9th March 2023 and instead choose to approach this Court despite the presence of a statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 11 of the Act of 1967. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The moot question involved in the instant petition arising from the respective pleadings of the parties is as to whether the respondents were required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before impounding of his passport. The question, however, stands already settled by the Apex Court in case titled as “Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India” reported in AIR 1978 page 597, wherein it has been inter alia held that the passport authority may proceed to impound the passport without giving any prior opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, but as soon as the order impounding the passport is made, an opportunity of hearing, should be given to the person concerned so that he may present his/her case and controvert that of the passport authority and point out why his passport should not be impounded and that the order impounding it recalled, and that this should be quite appropriate, because the reasons for impounding the passport are required to be supplied by the passport authority after the making of the order and the person affected would, therefore, be in a position to make a representation setting forth his case and plead for setting aside the action impounding his passport and that a fair opportunity of being heard following immediately upon the order impounding the passport would satisfy the mandate of natural justice and a provision requiring giving of such opportunity to the person concerned can and should be read by implication in the Passport Act of 1967, and that if such a provision were held to be incorporated in the Act 1967 by necessary implication, as we hold, the procedure prescribed by the Act for impounding a passport would be right, fair and just and it would not suffer from arbitrariness or unreasonableness and that we must therefore hold that the procedure provided by the Passport Act 1967 for impounding a passport must be in conformity with requirement of Article 21 of the constitution and does not foul of that Article. 8. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the order of impounding of passport contained in letter dated 1st February 2023, does not anywhere call upon the petitioner to respond to the order of impounding by providing him an opportunity of hearing. The order manifestly has been issued in breach and violation of the mandate of natural justice as has been held by the Apex Court in the judgment of Maneka Gandhi supra. However, perusal of the record of the petition reveals that this Court while considering the petition on 15th February 2023 provided an opportunity to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and provide him sufficient opportunity of hearing to put forth his case against the order of impounding of his passport and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in the matter thereafter. Record however reveals and suggests that the respondents have not chosen to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter proceeded in the matter in compliance to the order passed by this Court on 15th February 2023. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the order dated 15th February 2023 passed by this Court, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the instant petition at this stage as follows: I. The respondents shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioner within two weeks from today qua the impounding of his passport providing him an opportunity of hearing to put forth his case against the order of impounding of passport in question, upon receipt of which, the petitioner herein shall be at liberty to file his response thereto the said show cause notice within a period of two weeks thereafter. II. The respondent 2 thereafter shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. III. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 03.02.2025 Hilal Ahmad Whether the order is speaking/reportable? Yes/No