The Court held that while the petitioner could not set aside the impugned passport suspension order due to a pending plea in another High Court, the respondents were directed to provide a hearing within six weeks.
Directed respondents to provide a hearing to the petitioner within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~27
SURENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Pardeep Dahiya, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr T.P. Singh and Mr Sahaj Garg, Advocates for R1 and R2/UOI.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 05.09.2017
ORDER
“WHEREAS, the Central Government on the basis of information available with it has the sufficient reasons to believe that provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 may be invoked against Shri Surender Singh S/o Ram Bhagat .
Now THEREFORE, the Central Government, has decided
Page 1 of 1
W.P. (C) 5243/2017
to suspend the Passport No. K- 6770875 of Shri Surender Singh S/o Ram Bhagat under the provisions of Section 10-A of the Passports Act, 1967, for a period of four weeks from the date of issue of this order.”
(Arun Kumar Chatterjee) Joint Secretary (PSP) & Chief Passport Officer Ph. -011-23387013 Fax- 011-23071370 E-mail- [email protected]
ORDER
“WHEREAS, the Central Government on the basis of information available with it had sufficient reasons to believe that provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 may be invoked against Mr. Surender Singh S/o Ram Bhagat, suspended his passport No. K- 6770875 under the provisions of Section 10-A of the said Act, for a period of four weeks from the date of issue of an order in this regard.
NOW, the Central Government in terms of the statutory provisions of Section 10-A of the said Act, has decided to extend the period of suspension of passport No. K-6770875 of Mr.Surender Singh, till the proceedings relating to impounding/ revocation of his passport under sub-section (c) of section 10 of the said Act are concluded by the Embassy of India, Rome”
(Arun Kumar Chatterjee) Joint Secretary (PSP) & Chief Passport Officer Ph.011-23387013
Page 2 of 2
W.P. (C) 5243/2017
“Without making any comment on the aforesaid contentions of both sides, the contention of learned State counsel being that the matter is still under investigation for a possible racket of human trafficking being existent, I see no ground to allow the petitioner to travel abroad at this stage, there being a strong possibility of his not returning, with a criminal case pending against him in India. ”
“10A. Suspension of passports or travel documents in certain cases -
(1)Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in section 10, if the Central Government or any
Page 3 of 3
W.P. (C) 5243/2017
designated officer is satisfied that the passport or travel document is likely to be impounded or caused to be impounded or revoked under clause(c) of sub-section(3) of section 10 and it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it or he may,-
(a) By order, suspend, with immediate effect, any passport or travel document;
(b) Pass such other appropriate order which may have the effect of rendering any passport or travel document invalid,
for a period not exceeding four weeks:
Provided that the Central Government or the designated officer may, if it or he considers appropriate, extend, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the said period of four weeks till the proceedings relating to variation, impounding or revocation of passport or travel document under section 10 are concluded: Provided further that every holder of the passports or travel document, in respect of whom an order under clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section had been passed, shall be given an opportunity of being heard within a period of not later than eight weeks reckoned from the date of passing of such order and thereupon the Central Government may, if necessary, by order in writing, modify or revoke the order passed under this sub-section.”
Page 4 of 4
W.P. (C) 5243/2017
respondents are directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today and take an informed decision whether it is necessary to suspend the petitioner’s passport for a further period.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 pkv
Page 5 of 5
W.P. (C) 5243/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents were required to provide the petitioner an opportunity of being hearing within eight weeks as mandated by the second proviso to Section 10A(1) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Whether the request to set aside the impugned order extending suspension should be allowed despite the rejection of similar prayer by another High Court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Surender Singh
Union of India
Chief Passport Officer
Vibhu Bakhru
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
