2012 (8) TMI 1224 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Passport Impoundment Despite Appeal, Cites Natural Justice Violation for Lack of Hearing and Notice.

The court addressed two issues regarding the impounding of the petitioner's passport. On the first issue, it upheld the validity of impounding under ... Impounding of passport under Section 10(3)(d) of the Passport Act, 1967 - moral turpitude - suspension of sentence does not erase conviction - principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) - appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967Impounding of passport under Section 10(3)(d) of the Passport Act, 1967 - moral turpitude - suspension of sentence does not erase conviction - Whether the ingredients of Section 10(3)(d) of the Passport Act, 1967 are attracted in respect of the petitioner's conviction - HELD THAT: - The Court held that conviction for offences under Section 420 IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act constitute offences involving moral turpitude, and that suspension of the sentence does not erase the conviction on record. Reliance was placed on precedent that suspension of sentence does not suspend conviction and on authority that the expression 'moral turpitude' is not to be given a narrow construction. Consequently, there was no legal impediment to the Passport Authority invoking the power under Section 10(3)(d) where the statutory ingredients are present. [Paras 9, 11]The Court concluded that the statutory ground under Section 10(3)(d) is attracted to the petitioner's case.Principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) - impounding of passport under Section 10(3)(d) of the Passport Act, 1967 - appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 - Whether the impugned impounding order is vitiated for breach of natural justice and what remedial step is required - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the impugned order was based on a request from the CBI and was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as required by the rules of natural justice applicable to the quasi judicial exercise of power to impound a passport. Authorities were cited establishing that impounding a passport seriously interferes with the constitutional right to travel and ordinarily requires reasons and an opportunity to be heard. Although the statutory ground may be attracted, the failure to hear the petitioner rendered the impugned order invalid. The Court therefore set aside the impugned order and directed the Passport Authority to afford the petitioner a hearing and to pass an appropriate order under Section 10(3)(d); any adverse order thereafter would be open to challenge by way of appeal under Section 11. [Paras 15, 16]Impugned order set aside for breach of audi alteram partem; matter remitted to the Passport Authority to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, with appellate remedy preserved.Final Conclusion: The Court upheld that Section 10(3)(d) may apply where conviction for offences involving moral turpitude exists and that suspension of sentence does not annul conviction, but set aside the specific impounding order because the petitioner was not afforded a hearing; the Regional Passport Officer is directed to hear the petitioner and decide afresh under Section 10(3)(d), with the right of appeal under Section 11 preserved. Issues Involved:1. Validity of impounding the petitioner's passport u/s 10(3)(d) of the Passport Act, 1967.2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the impounding process.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of Impounding the Passport u/s 10(3)(d)The petitioner's passport was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, based on the conviction by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, and subsequent orders. The petitioner argued that the impounding was against the provisions of law, including the Passport Act, and violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that since his conviction was under appeal and the sentence was suspended, the invocation of Section 10(3)(d) was invalid. However, the court held that the suspension of the sentence does not erase the conviction, citing the Supreme Court's clarification in Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S. Nagoor Meera. Therefore, the power under Section 10(3)(d) was validly invoked.Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural JusticeThe petitioner claimed that the impounding of his passport was done without following the principles of natural justice, as he was not given a notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which emphasized the necessity of following the principles of natural justice, including the audi alteram partem rule, before impounding a passport. The court found that the impugned order was based on a letter from the CBI without hearing the petitioner, making it invalid. The court directed the first respondent to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders under Section 10(3)(d) if required. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.