Passport custody and impounding: writ mandamus cannot compel return when the document is before the criminal court.

The power to impound a passport lies only with the competent authority under section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, and no other authority can exercise that power. However, where the passport is not in the respondents' custody but has been produced before the Special Judge in pending criminal proceedings, writ jurisdiction cannot be used against the respondents to compel its return. The proper course is to apply to the court having custody of the passport for release, while relying on the legal position on impounding if necessary. The mandamus request was therefore not entertained against the respondents.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing return of the petitioner's passport when the document was stated to be in the custody of the Special Judge and not with the respondents, and whether the petitioner was required to seek release of the passport from the criminal court.

Analysis: The power to impound a passport vests in the competent authority under section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, and no other authority can exercise that power. However, on the facts, the passport was not in the respondents' custody but had been produced before the Special Judge in the pending criminal proceedings. In that situation, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction could not be invoked against the respondents for return of the document. The appropriate course was to move the court having custody of the passport and seek its release, where the petitioner could also rely on the legal position regarding impounding of passports.

Conclusion: The request for mandamus was rejected as against the respondents, and the petitioner was left to seek release of the passport before the Special Judge.

---