The court directed the RPO to hear the petitioner
The Madras High Court on Monday set aside an order of the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, of January this year, impounding the passport of M. Natarajan, Editor of ‘Puthiya Paravai’, a Tamil fortnightly.
The court passed the order on a petition by Mr. Natarajan. He submitted that his passport was valid till December 15, 2018. It was impounded under Section 10(3) (d) of the Passport Act by an order of the Special Court for CBI cases on July 26, 2010 in connection with a case forwarded by the CBI.
The petitioner said he had been invited by the World Forum Federation to Oxford, England, from August 28 to September 2 this year and had made arrangements for the travel. Hence he prayed for the release of the passport.
The authorities contended that the petitioner had been convicted by the Special Court, sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 20,000. Mr. Natarajan preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court and the sentence of imprisonment alone was suspended with certain conditions. The appeal was pending.
The petitioner said on July 26 last year, the High Court relaxed the conditions. Therefore, impounding the passport at this stage was invalid. Principles of natural justice had not been followed.
Justice K. Chandru said in this case, there was no stay of the conviction. Only the sentence had been suspended. Therefore, there was no impediment for the authorities to invoke the power under section 10 (3) (d) of the Passport Act.
Accepting the submission of senior counsel G. Rajagopalan, that the petitioner was not heard, the Judge said at the same time, it could not be said that ingredients of Section 10 (3) (d) were not attracted. However, neither immediately after his conviction nor after he got the sentence suspended was his passport impounded. He was allowed to travel abroad during that period. The impugned order was based on a letter from the CBI but without hearing the petitioner. Hence it was invalid. To that extent the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
The court directed the RPO to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders if it was so required. Even after this exercise, if the order was adverse to the petitioner, it would be open to him to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 11 of the Passports Act.
The Judge dismissed another writ petition by B. John Pandian praying for a direction to the RPO to renew his passport as per his representation of September 6 last year. The court said a criminal case was pending involving the petitioner before Judicial Magistrate II, Dindigul.
via The Hindu Newspaper http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3735175.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment