Passport impounding requires lawful basis and statutory procedure; unsupported customs information could not justify withholding the passport.

Passport impounding must rest on a lawful basis and compliance with the statutory procedure under the Passport Act, including the opportunity contemplated by the Act. Information supplied by Customs was found unreliable and unsupported by the record, so the withholding of the passport could not be sustained. The action was also inconsistent with the protected right to travel under Article 21. The impounding order was set aside, and the Passport Authority was directed to release or re-issue the passport in accordance with law, with liberty to proceed afresh under Section 10(5) if warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impounding of the petitioner's passport on the basis of customs communication and without adherence to the procedure under the Passport Act was valid.

Analysis: The passport was withheld on the basis of information supplied by the Customs authorities, but the record showed that the complaint had not progressed in the manner asserted by those authorities and that the information was unreliable. The impounding power under the Passport Act requires a lawful basis and compliance with the statutory procedure, including observance of the opportunity contemplated by the Act. The right to travel is protected under Article 21, and withholding of a passport cannot rest on incorrect or unsupported material supplied by another authority. The Court found the impugned action to be misplaced, untenable, illegal, and suffering from fallacy.

Conclusion: The impounding order was set aside and the Passport Authority was directed to release or re-issue the passport in accordance with law, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with Section 10(5) of the Passport Act, 1967 if so warranted.

---