Punjab and Haryana High Court raps Centre for confiscating passport sans procedure

Advertisement

Chandigarh, February 6

More than five years after the valid passport of an advocate and human rights activist was confiscated without being impounded, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the action of the Union of India, the Regional Passport Officer and another authorities was vitiated “on the ground of wrongful exercise of powers, being arbitrary and oppressive”.

The assertion by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri came on a petition filed by Harpal Singh through counsel Navkiran Singh. The Bench observed the petitioner was holding a valid passport and was neither named in any FIR, nor a criminal case. He was earlier convicted in a case under the TADA Act. But the conviction had already been set aside by the Supreme Court.

His passport was seized by the passport authorities on a requisition sent by the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh. Describing it as “very surprising”, Justice Puri added an order’s perusal showed the appellate authority saying that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on October 10, 2017, and the passport was impounded the same day and it was not only factually incorrect, but also improper. The position regarding the non-issuance of order for impounding the passport had been affirmed by the counsel for respondents on the basis of record requisitioned by the high court.

Justice Puri added the petitioner replied to the show cause notice issued in the present case. But admittedly order impounding the petitioner’s passport had not been passed by any authority. “In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that action of the respondents is vitiated on the ground of wrongful exercise of powers being arbitrary and oppressive. This court is not making any observation with regard to the power of the respondents- passport authorities or the central government to take action in accordance with law. No doubt the powers exists under the provisions of passports Act, but here is a case where the exercise of power was bad in view of the facts and circumstances”

Justice Puri added respondent-Regional Passport Officer not only violated the principles of natural justice, but also the statutory provisions of Passports Act and in sharp contrast to the authoritative law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi’s case. Directing the return of passport, Justice Puri granted the Regional Passport Authority the liberty to issue fresh show cause notice, if required, strictly in accordance with law.