Passport impounding must be reasoned, but undeclared goods justified remand without immediate return of the passport.

An impounding order under the Passport Act, 1967 was held unsustainable because the communication gave no reasons and did not record the petitioner's contentions, making it a non-speaking order. The Court set aside and quashed the impounding decision. However, because undeclared goods had been found with the petitioner in connection with customs seizure proceedings, it declined to direct immediate return of the passport. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with directions to hear all concerned parties and pass a reasoned speaking order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order impounding the passport could be sustained when it was a non-speaking order, and whether the passport should be directed to be returned to the petitioner.

Analysis: The passport was directed to be impounded under Section 10(3)(a)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 after the petitioner had been intercepted and arrested in connection with seizure proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned communication did not record the petitioner's contentions or disclose any reasons. Since the order was non-speaking, the Court held that the decision to impound the passport could not stand. At the same time, the undisputed fact that undeclared goods had been found with the petitioner weighed against a direction for immediate return of the passport. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh consideration after hearing all concerned parties.

Conclusion: The impounding order was set aside and quashed, but no direction was issued to return the passport; the Regional Passport Officer was directed to pass a fresh speaking order after hearing the parties.

---