Passport impounding requires independent application of mind; orders set aside for ignoring relevant facts and representation.

Impounding of a passport cannot be sustained where the authorities act without independent application of mind, ignore the petitioner's explanation, and fail to consider relevant surrounding facts. The Madras HC noted that the petitioner was on bail without travel restrictions, had previously travelled abroad for business, and there was no material showing an attempt to evade the process of law. The impugned orders relied mainly on the pending criminal case and a CBI communication, but the statutory appellate authority was also required to give a reasoned decision on its own assessment. The impounding order and appellate confirmation were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders impounding the passport and confirming the impounding in appeal were sustainable when the authorities acted without independent application of mind and without considering the relevant facts and representation of the petitioner.

Analysis: The petitioner was on bail without any travel restriction, had made prior foreign trips in connection with his business, and there was no material showing any attempt to evade the process of law. The impugned orders disclosed that the authorities proceeded mainly on the basis of the pending criminal case and the CBI communication, without independently evaluating the petitioner's explanation or the relevant surrounding circumstances. An appellate authority exercising statutory power was also required to apply its own mind and pass a reasoned order, particularly where the action affected valuable constitutional and statutory rights.

Conclusion: The impounding order and the appellate confirmation were unsustainable and were set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

---