9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passport, bearing No.P2208297 issued on 22.12.2016, was impounded, and for quashing the order/communication dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure P-14), whereby her representation dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure P-13) addressed to the Regional Passport Officer -(respondent No. 6 herein) against the seizure/impounding of her passport, was disposed of by him by only informing that her passport had been impounded under Section 10(3) (h) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for brevity, 'the Act') as she had been declared a proclaimed offender by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. 3. In brief the case of respondent No.1 was that her marriage was solemnized with Anudeep Singh on 23.10.1993. She then shifted to her matrimonial home at Amritsar from New Delhi. Two children were born to them. However due to serious differences with her husband, she shifted back to her parental home at New Delhi in March, 2013 and since then, she has been living there. Consequently she was unaware of the business activities of her husband. She was shown one of the partners in the business firm run by her husband, whereas she had virtually no role to play in the affairs of said business. She was shocked t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under reference stands disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Passport Officer Amritsar" 6. Before the Ld. Single Judge the contention on behalf of respondent No.1 was that the appellant Kotak Mahindra Bank had filed two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, wherein the address given was of her matrimonial home viz. 68-A, Maqbool Road, Amritsar, whereas she was residing in New Delhi at that time. She got to know that she had been declared a proclaimed person on 14.11.2017 only when the appellant -Bank, informed her vide letter dated 13.07.2018 about the proclamation order. This information was sent at her Delhi address, indicating that the appellant was fully aware that she was not residing at Amritsar. Respondent No.1 appeared before the Court issuing the proclamation and was granted bail on 17.12.2018. Thereafter the order declaring her as a proclaimed person ceased to be operative. Thus, there was no occasion for respondent No.6 - Regional Passport Officer to impound the passport of the petitioner on 23.04.2019 on the ground that she had been declared as proclaimed person. Reliance was placed on a decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019, seeking impounding of the passport of respondent No.1. But as during the pendency of the writ petition the passport was impounded it was disposed of as infructous. 9. The Ld. Single Judge allowed the writ petition observing inter alia as under: "Section 10(5) of the Act, stipulates that furnishing of reasons for impounding a passport is mandatory and despite the fact that Delhi High Court, vide order dated 20.05.2019, had directed the passport authorities to furnish a copy of statement of reasons for impounding the passport of the petitioner, no reasons had ever been communicated. When the statement of reasons was not supplied to the petitioner, she sent a legal notice dated 28.07.2019 and vide letter dated 06.08.2019, she was informed that since she had been declared a proclaimed person, her passport had been impounded and she was further asked to furnish a copy of the order passed by the concerned Court for releasing her passport. Respondent No.5, Regional Passport Officer, has ignored the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. A relevant extracts of the order dated 10.06.2019 would read as under: "However, it is made clear that accuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f suspension of passport has been passed under clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section, shall be given an opportunity of being heard, within a period of not later than eight weeks reckoned from the date of passing of such an order. Upon such hearing, the Central Government is empowered, if necessary, by an order in writing to modify or revoke the order under this section. Thus, the act of respondent No.5 impounding the passport of the petitioner has a clear impact on her Fundamental Rights. As mentioned above, upon the petitioner's having appeared before the Judicial Magistrate at Ludhiana, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative. The said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent No.5-Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar. Moreover, in a bailable offence, no condition can be imposed by the Court regarding surrender of the passport." 10. Ld. Single Judge further concluded that the conduct of the proceedings at the end of Respondent No.6 - Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar leading to the passing of the impugned orders, stemmed from legal malice as the statutory provisions and the settled law on the issue had been ignored. Ld. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
