Allahabad High Court Quashes Passport Impound Order for Mohammad Umar
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court quashed the order impounding Mohammad Umar's passport, emphasizing that a pending criminal case alone does not justify such action. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla, delivered the ruling on July 25, 2024, highlighting the need for reasoned orders when impounding passports under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Case Background
Mohammad Umar, the petitioner, contested a communication dated May 30, 2023, from the Regional Passport Office in Lucknow. This communication informed him that his passport (No. M1266202), issued on August 20, 2014, had been impounded due to a pending criminal case registered as Case Crime No. 25 of 2023. The case included charges under various sections of the IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019.
Legal Issues and Court's Decision
The court examined the interpretation and application of Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, which permits passport authorities to impound passports if criminal proceedings are pending against the holder.
Key Observations:
1. Discretionary Power: The court noted that the word "may" in Section 10(3)(e) indicates discretion, not obligation, meaning impounding a passport is not mandatory even when criminal proceedings are pending.
2. Reasoned Decision Required: The court stressed that passport authorities must provide reasons for impounding a passport, taking into account the potential for misuse and delays in criminal proceedings.
3. Insufficient Grounds: The court observed that the passport officer in this case decided to impound Umar's passport solely because of the pending criminal case. The officer did not consider the specifics of the case or provide reasons suggesting that Umar might misuse his passport.
4. Natural Justice: The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons, citing Section 10(5) of the Act, which mandates that passport authorities must give brief reasons for impounding orders.
Court's Decision
The High Court allowed Umar's writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated May 30, 2023. The court directed the Regional Passport Officer to reconsider the matter, grant Umar a hearing, and issue a new order within six weeks.
This judgment reinforces the principle that mere pendency of a criminal case is not enough to impound a passport and highlights the need for reasoned decisions to ensure justice and prevent misuse of authority.
AdvoTalks: Talk to Lawyer https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
