The Madras High Court Bench here has held that Regional Passport Officers must adhere to principles of natural justice before impounding passports though the Passport Act, 1967 does not contain an expression provision to follow Audi Alteram Partem (a Latin phrase that means that the other side should be heard as well before taking a decision).
Justice M. Venugopal passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by S. Joseph Nuson of Tirunelveli serving as a Bosun, also known as Boatswain, with an Iranian company. The petitioner was aggrieved against impounding of his passport by the Regional Passport Officer here by citing the pendency of a criminal case before Koodankulam police.
According to the petitioner, he had come to his hometown on vacation in May last when a quarrel erupted between one Prabhu and Milton over the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project issue. The quarrel ended up in violence with Prabhu using a sword to hack Milton. Then, he and other villagers present on the spot intervened and it resulted in a cut injury on his palm. Hence, the police included the petitioner as a witness in a case registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Milton. Irked over it, Prabhu lodged another complaint accusing Milton and the petitioner of having assaulted him. Feigning ignorance about the counter complaint for long, the petitioner said that he went abroad in June, returned in November and renewed his passport in January.
Stating that he came to know of the case pending against him only in February, the petitioner said that he immediately made a representation to the Superintendent of Police explaining his innocence. Subsequently, the Regional Passport Officer too issued a show cause notice to him on March 4 seeking explanation for suppressing the criminal case and he replied to it on March 21.
Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued on May 24 and on the same day an order was also passed impounding his passport. Disagreeing with such action taken by the RPO, Mr. Justice Venugopal said: “Such a procedure adopted by the RPO, in the considered opinion of this court, is not a desirable or palatable one for the latent and patent reason that ingredients of principle justice have not been adhered to. “In this connection, it is not out of place for this court to make a significant mention that under Common Law, no one should be condemned without being heard in which the rules of natural justice are manifested.”
Justice M. Venugopal passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by S. Joseph Nuson of Tirunelveli serving as a Bosun, also known as Boatswain, with an Iranian company. The petitioner was aggrieved against impounding of his passport by the Regional Passport Officer here by citing the pendency of a criminal case before Koodankulam police.
According to the petitioner, he had come to his hometown on vacation in May last when a quarrel erupted between one Prabhu and Milton over the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project issue. The quarrel ended up in violence with Prabhu using a sword to hack Milton. Then, he and other villagers present on the spot intervened and it resulted in a cut injury on his palm. Hence, the police included the petitioner as a witness in a case registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Milton. Irked over it, Prabhu lodged another complaint accusing Milton and the petitioner of having assaulted him. Feigning ignorance about the counter complaint for long, the petitioner said that he went abroad in June, returned in November and renewed his passport in January.
Stating that he came to know of the case pending against him only in February, the petitioner said that he immediately made a representation to the Superintendent of Police explaining his innocence. Subsequently, the Regional Passport Officer too issued a show cause notice to him on March 4 seeking explanation for suppressing the criminal case and he replied to it on March 21.
Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued on May 24 and on the same day an order was also passed impounding his passport. Disagreeing with such action taken by the RPO, Mr. Justice Venugopal said: “Such a procedure adopted by the RPO, in the considered opinion of this court, is not a desirable or palatable one for the latent and patent reason that ingredients of principle justice have not been adhered to. “In this connection, it is not out of place for this court to make a significant mention that under Common Law, no one should be condemned without being heard in which the rules of natural justice are manifested.”
Comments
Post a Comment