The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order impounding the passport of Mohammad Umar, emphasizing that the mere pendency of a criminal case is not sufficient grounds for such action. In a judgment delivered on July 25, 2024, the Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla ruled that passport authorities must provide reasoned orders when impounding passports under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Case Background:
Mohammad Umar, the petitioner, challenged a communication dated May 30, 2023, from the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, which informed him of the decision to impound his passport (No. M1266202) issued on August 20, 2014. The impounding was based on a pending criminal case against Umar, registered as Case Crime No. 25 of 2023 under various sections of the IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act, and Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
The primary issue before the court was the interpretation and application of Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows passport authorities to impound passports if criminal proceedings are pending against the holder.
The court made several key observations:
1. Discretionary Power: The court noted that the use of the word “may” in Section 10(3)(e) indicates that impounding a passport is discretionary, not mandatory, even when criminal proceedings are pending.
2. Reasoned Decision Required: The court emphasized that passport authorities must record reasons for impounding a passport, considering the possibility of misuse and potential delay in criminal proceedings.
3. Insufficient Grounds: The court stated, “The passport officer in the present matter has taken decision to impound petitioner’s passport under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 only on the ground that proceedings related to an offence are pending against the petitioner before criminal court but he has not considered the facts of the criminal case and has also not recorded reasons to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner may misuse his passport”.
4. Natural Justice: The court highlighted the importance of providing reasons, citing Section 10(5) of the Act, which mandates that passport authorities give brief reasons for impounding orders.
Court’s Decision:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated May 30, 2023. It directed the respondent (Regional Passport Officer) to reconsider the matter, grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass a fresh order within six weeks.
Also Read
Parties and Counsel:
– Petitioner: Mohammad Umar, represented by Suhel Ahmad Azmi
– Respondents: Union of India and 2 Others, represented by C.S.C.
Case Number: WRIT – C No. – 20480 of 2024
