Passport impounding must be reasoned and periodically reviewed; indefinite restraint under the Passports Act is impermissible.

A passport impounded under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 cannot be subjected to an indefinite or open-ended restraint; the authority must form a genuine, reasoned satisfaction that continuation remains necessary in public interest and must periodically review the need for impounding. Mere reproduction of statutory language, without an independent assessment of the investigation stage or progress, is insufficient, and an appellate order giving no reasons is unsustainable. The continued impounding was therefore not supported by the recorded reasons, and the matter required fresh reconsideration by the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether a passport can be kept impounded indefinitely under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, and whether the impugned orders were sustainable for want of reasons and periodic review.

Analysis: The power under Section 10(3)(c) is conditioned by a genuine satisfaction that impounding is necessary in the interests specified in the provision. That satisfaction cannot be mechanical or based only on the seriousness of allegations. Where the holder is under criminal investigation, the stage and progress of investigation are relevant factors, and the authority must consider whether continued impounding is still warranted. The impugned orders merely reproduced statutory language and did not disclose any independent, reasoned assessment. The appellate order gave no reasons at all. The Court held that an order under Section 10(3)(c) cannot operate as an indefinite or open-ended restraint and that the authority must indicate a time frame and undertake review before continuation.

Conclusion: Indefinite impounding of the passport was impermissible, and the continued impounding could not be sustained on the reasons recorded in the impugned orders. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered afresh by the appellate authority.

Final Conclusion: The passport authorities were directed to undertake a fresh, reasoned review of whether continued impounding remained justified in public interest, without being influenced by earlier observations or orders, and to decide the matter within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A passport impounded under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 cannot be kept under an indefinite or open-ended restraint; the authority must apply its mind to relevant factors, record reasons, and periodically review whether continuation is still justified in public interest.

---