SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Solanki Kundu vs Union Of India And Others on 7 January, 2020

1

S/L. 37.
January 7, 2020.
MNS.

W. P. No. 24131(W) of 2019

Solanki Kundu
Vs.
Union of India and others

Mr. Kamalesh Jha,
Ms. Srabani Biswas

… for the petitioner.

Mr. Avinash Kankani

…for the respondent nos. 1,3,4,5 and 7.

Mr. Sakya Sen,
Mr. Shamim ul Bari

…for the State-respondent.

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.

Heard the respective parties.

The present grievance revolves around a matrimonial dispute between the

petitioner and the respondent no. 10.

It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 10, being the

husband of the petitioner, remarried and fled to a foreign country with a person with whom

he committed bigamy and is now outside India.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a complaint has been specifically

lodged by the petitioner against the respondent no. 10 long back, and charge-sheet has

been filed on the basis of the First Information Report registered against the respondent
2

no. 10, including the charge of bigamy, as well as offence under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and other allied offences.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the passport authorities,

despite having assured the petitioner that they have taken steps pursuant to her complaint

for impounding the passport of the respondent no. 10 in view of a warrant of personal

appearance having been issued against the respondent no. 10, the passport authorities

are sitting tight over the matter.

Leaned counsel for the petitioner relies on Section 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act,

1967 to impress upon the court that, in the event it is brought to the notice to the passport

authorities that a warrant of arrest of the holder of the passport or travel document has

been issued by a court under any law, the passport authorities may impound or cause to

be impounded or revoked the passport or travel document of the accused.

Learned counsel appearing for the passport authorities submits that it is the

discretion on the part of the said authorities to impound the passport of the accused

and/or revoke the same or not, even under Clause (h) of sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of

the 1967 Act.

It is further submitted that Clause (h) itself envisages that there can be an order

made by the court on which the passport authorities might act and impound or revoke the

passport-in-question.

In this context, it is submitted by learned counsel for the passport authorities that

no such order was obtained by the petitioner from the court.

It appears from the annexures to the present writ petition that the petitioner is

justified in submitting that the passport authorities have the power to impound or revoke a
3

passport or travel document in case of a warrant of arrest/ personal appearance being

issued, and that in the present case, the passport authorities themselves intimated the

petitioner that action has already been initiated against the respondent no. 10 by their

office as per extant guidelines. Subsequently, a show cause notice was also issued to the

respondent no. 10, an answer to which is annexed as Annexure- P/10 at page- 71 of the

instant writ petition.

However, in the event a mandatory direction is given at this premature stage on the

passport authorities to revoke or impound the passport of the respondent no. 10 on the

basis of the allegations made by the petitioner, it can be opening the flood-gate too wide,

since then merely at the drop of a hat, it would be open to the passport authorities and to

other similar authorities to impinge upon the personal liberty of citizens of India.

However, this court ought not to go into such an extent on the merits of the case,

since a mere direction on the passport authorities to intimate the final decision under

Section 10(3)(h) of the 1967 Act to the petitioner would suffice, as the power of

impounding or revocation of passports falls within the discretion of the said authorities.

Accordingly, W. P. No. 24131(W) of 2019 is disposed of by directing the

respondent no. 7 to intimate to the petitioner as to the decision of the said authority on the

application of the petitioner for impounding/revocation of the passport of respondent no.

10, under Section 10(3)(h) of the 1967 Act, within a fortnight from date.

It is made clear that, in the event there is any further grievance of the petitioner

after receiving such communication, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the

appropriate Magistrate for a further order seeking an order of impoundment/revocation
4

and/or to approach this Court in the event the discretion is not exercised in accordance

with law by the respondent no. 7.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to

the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation