Impounding passport without hearing violates natural justice: Delhi HC

New Delhi: Impounding a passport without considering the affected person’s response violates the principles of natural justice, Delhi High Court has said, setting aside one such order.

A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia noted that the final order impounding the petitioner’s passport was passed on Aug 3, 2021, even though the deadline to submit a reply to the show-cause notice was Aug 4, 2021.

The court said denying the passport holder the full time to respond amounted to a denial of fair opportunity, particularly as the authorities had also failed to consider an earlier reply submitted by him. In these circumstances, the HC held that a prima facie violation of natural justice was made out.

The bench was hearing a plea by a man who contended that the action of the authorities was arbitrary and contrary to due process. His passport was impounded following a complaint by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which alleged his non-cooperation in the investigation of the AgustaWestland helicopter scam being conducted by the CBI.

The petitioner’s passport was impounded on the basis of a complaint by ED alleging his non-cooperation to join investigation in the case of Agusta Westland Helicopter Scam being conducted by CBI.

ED also alleged his failure to answer summons issued by the concerned special court in Delhi which had issued summons earlier.

Opposing relief, the authorities argued that an effective alternative remedy was available under the Passports Act and that the writ petition had therefore been rightly dismissed by a single judge.

Rejecting the contention, the HC reiterated that while high courts ordinarily do not entertain writ petitions where a statutory remedy exists, the rule is not absolute. Courts can intervene in cases involving violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction or infringement of fundamental rights.

The court further observed that passport impounding proceedings have serious consequences and therefore require strict adherence to procedural fairness.

Allowing the appeal, the HC set aside the single judge’s order, directed that the matter be decided expeditiously and granted time to the ED to file its counter affidavit.