Passport revocation on enforcement material upheld where notice and hearing were given and public interest was shown.

Passport authorities may act under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 on actionable material received from another statutory authority without independently adjudicating the underlying enforcement proceedings, where the material indicates action in the public interest. In the reported matter, summons and non-appearance in a FEMA investigation led to a communication seeking passport action, and the Court found that the show-cause notice and hearing gave adequate notice of possible revocation or impounding. The challenge based on lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, absence of independent application of mind, and alleged delay in appeal was rejected, and the passport revocation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the passport authorities validly revoked the petitioner's passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 on the basis of material received from the Directorate of Enforcement, and whether the impugned action was vitiated by lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or absence of public interest.

Analysis: The impugned action was founded on summons issued under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the petitioner's non-appearance, followed by a complaint under Section 16(3) of that Act and a communication to the passport authority seeking action under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967. The Court held that the passport authority was entitled to act on actionable material supplied by another statutory authority and was not required to independently adjudicate the merits of the enforcement proceedings before invoking Section 10(3)(c). The show-cause notice and subsequent hearing were held to have sufficiently put the petitioner to notice that revocation or impounding could follow if his explanation was not accepted, and the material supplied was found adequate for natural justice purposes. The Court further held that the interest of general public was made out because the underlying FEMA investigation concerned the country's economic interest, and that the petitioner had no right to insist on an alternative mode of examination in place of personal appearance. The objections based on the role of the issuing officer, delay in the appellate order, and alleged lack of independent application of mind were rejected.

Conclusion: The revocation of the passport was held to be valid and lawful, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court upholding the exercise of power under the Passports Act, 1967 on the basis of material arising from the FEMA investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the passport authority receives actionable material from another statutory authority showing that passport action is required in the interest of the general public, it may proceed under Section 10(3)(c) without independently adjudicating the underlying enforcement proceedings, provided reasonable notice and hearing are afforded.

---