|
The Delhi High Court has held that passing an order impounding a passport before the expiry of the reply period and without considering the response of the affected person raises a clear issue of violation of natural justice.
Setting aside the order of a Single Judge, the High Court observed that such a case warranted the exercise of writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia noted that the final order impounding the appellant's passport was passed on August 3, 2021, even though the deadline to submit a reply to the show cause notice was August 4, 2021. The Court said that denying the appellant the full time to respond amounted to a denial of a fair opportunity. The Bench further recorded that the impugned order did not even deal with the reply submitted earlier by the appellant. In these circumstances, the Court found that a prima facie case of violation of principles of natural justice was made out. Senior Advocates Vikas Pahwa and Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing for the appellant Shravan Gupta, argued that the action of the authorities was arbitrary and contrary to due process. They contended that relegating the appellant to a statutory appeal after several years was unjustified, particularly when the order itself suffered from procedural illegality. On the other hand, Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC, along with Ananaya Shamshery and Anchal Kashyap for the Union of India, and Additional Solicitor General DP Singh, assisted by Manu Mishra and Garima Saxena for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted that an effective alternative remedy was available under the Passports Act and the writ petition was rightly declined. Rejecting this contention, the Court reiterated that although High Courts ordinarily do not entertain writ petitions where a statutory remedy exists, this rule is not absolute. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the Bench emphasised that writ jurisdiction can still be exercised in cases involving a violation of natural justice, a lack of jurisdiction, or an infringement of fundamental rights. The Court also highlighted that proceedings relating to the impounding of passports have serious consequences and therefore strict adherence to procedural fairness is essential. It observed that principles of natural justice assume special significance in such matters, particularly in light of the law laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. The case arises from the impounding of Gupta's passport in August 2021 following show cause notices issued on the basis of inputs from the Enforcement Directorate alleging non-cooperation in the AgustaWestland helicopter scam investigation. Gupta had challenged both the notices and the final order as being procedurally flawed. Allowing the appeal, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order dated February 13, 2026, and restored the writ petition to its original number for fresh consideration. The Court directed that the matter be decided expeditiously and granted time to the Enforcement Directorate to file its counter affidavit, with liberty to the appellant to seek interim relief. (ANI)
|
