# Dr. Neera Chandra v. Union of India &Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 1098
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-26
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 27307 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shashi Kant Gupta, Umesh Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-neera-chandra-v-union-of-india-ors-44412
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. The Passports Act, 1967: Sections
10 and 12(1)(b). Sections 177 and
188
IPC.
Non-disclosure
of
the
pendency of criminal case cannot be
taken as material suppression of fact
for impounding the passport.
Impugned
order
dated
28.05.2018,
directed petitioner either to surrender her
passport or to produce an order from the
competent Court. The
petitioner
was
granted permission to go abroad by
competent
Court.
Disposing
of
this
petition, the High Court. The basis of
impounding passport of the petitioner is
only pendency of a criminal case of a
minor nature. When the competent Court
has granted permission by passing a
reasoned order, the reasons given by
Regional Passport Officer do not stand.
(Para 14)

Precedent followed: -
1.Mohd. Farid Vs. Union of India &
another, decided on 20.12.2016 in Writ -
C No. 59959 of 2016

## Text

1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order it is also evident that 8
persons have already deposited the entire
amount and they have raised some
construction. In the case of those 8
applicants, the GIDA has sought legal
opinion and it was resolved that further
decision shall be taken subsequently. We
find that the cases of those 8 persons are
different than the petitioner, who had
admittedly not been given possession of
the plot. Thus, there is no question of
raising any construction over Plot No. F5, Sector-15.

49. In view of the above, we do not
find any ground to interfere in our
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the
writ petition is dismissed.

50. We also direct the State
Government to continue further action
against two officials namely Sri Gyan
Prakash Tripathi, the then CEO, and Sri
A.K. Singh, Manager (Property) of the
GIDA, against whom the disciplinary
proceedings
were
initiated.
The
disciplinary proceedings must be brought
to its logical end. Even if the said officers
are retired, action be taken against them in
terms of the relevant service rules/law.

51. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
for appropriate orders.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 27307 of 2019
Dr. Neera Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India &Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nipun Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

A. The Passports Act, 1967: Sections
10 and 12(1)(b). Sections 177 and
188
IPC.
Non-disclosure
of
the
pendency of criminal case cannot be
taken as material suppression of fact
for impounding the passport.
Impugned
order
dated
28.05.2018,
directed petitioner either to surrender her
passport or to produce an order from the
competent Court. The
petitioner
was
granted permission to go abroad by
competent
Court.
Disposing
of
this
petition, the High Court. The basis of
impounding passport of the petitioner is
only pendency of a criminal case of a
minor nature. When the competent Court
has granted permission by passing a
reasoned order, the reasons given by
Regional Passport Officer do not stand.
(Para 14)

Precedent followed: -
1.Mohd. Farid Vs. Union of India &
another, decided on 20.12.2016 in Writ -
C No. 59959 of 2016

2. Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India,
1978 (1) SCC 248 (Para 8)

3. Suresh Nanda Vs. CBI, 2008(3) SCC
6744 (Para 9)

4. Naresh Chandra Vs. Union of India and 3 others,
Writ - C No. 39572 of 2018(Para 11) (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.
& Hon'ble Umesh Kumar, J. )

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
1 All. Dr. Neera Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1099
Aradhna Chauhan, learned Central Govt.
Advocate who has filed appearance on
behalf of Union of India and learned
Standing Counsel for State Authorities.

2. This petition has been filed
seeking relief to quash the impugned
order
dated
28.5.2019
passed
by
respondent no.3 by which, the passport of
the petitioner has been ordered to be
impounded imposing penalty.

3. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to
this petition are that initially, a passport was
issued to the petitioner on 30.4.2008 bearing
Passport No. G 7983341 having validity up
to 29.4.2018; that before its expiry, the
petitioner applied on line for its renewal on
14.1.2018 and she was given appointment
for completing requisite formalities by the
Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad on
31.1.2018
bearing
File
No.
GZ04C4010003218 which the petitioner
complied with; but when, the petitioner did
not receive her passport, she again took
appointment on 20.3.2018 and personally
met the official at Regional Passport Office,
Ghaziabad, upon which, on 21.3.2018, the
petitioner received her passport on 25.3.2018
bearing No. R 9685546; that on 26.3.2019,
police verification on renewal application of
the petitioner was done by police authorities;
that after getting police verification report,
the Regional Passport Officer, Ghaziabad
issued a show cause notice dated 13.4.2018
seeking clarification from the petitioner
about pendency of a criminal case, relevant
extract whereof, is quoted below;

" COURT CASE IS PENDING
CRIME NUMBER 475/2012 188/171 J
IPC BY REPORT

You may recall that a passport
bearing passport number R9685546 dated
21/03/2018 was dispatched to you by this
office on the basis of your application
dated 01/02/2018.

You are therefore, called upon to
provide a suitable explanation and submit
a fresh application with correct details.
Please note that you are required to
furnish a proper explanation regarding the
circumstances under which you had
suppressed the material information in
your passport application and obtained the
above said passport.

Also state why action should not be
taken to impound the passport number
R9685546 dated 21/03/2018, of the
Passport Act, 1967 and Section 12(1)(b)
of the Passport Act, 1967 should not be
initiated against you.

Please quote the reference number
mentioned in the top block of this letter
for further correspondence."

4. The petitioner submitted reply to
the show cause notice and after receipt of
the reply, the Regional Passport Officer,
Ghaziabad passed the impugned order on
24.5.2018 directing the petitioner either to
surrender her passport or to produce an
order from the competent Court as is
required by notification ( GSR 570E); that
on 12.6.2018, the petitioner submitted
reply again to the Regional Passport
Officer, Ghaziabad through registered
post; that thereafter on 7.9.2018, the
petitioner received e-mail letter bearing
Reference
No.
SCN312165822/18
seeking clarification as to why, the
material information was not disclosed in
the application; that just within 14
minutes of the above e-mail letter, the
petitioner received another order dated
7.8.2018
(
Reference
No.
IMP/
312166100/18)
which
the
petitioner
challenged by filing Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 344419 of 2018, which
ultimately was dismissed as withdrawn by
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 11.10.2018 with liberty to
approach
the
appropriate
authority
/forum.

5. The petitioner in term of the
aforesaid
order,
approached
the
competent Court below where criminal
case was pending under Section 188 and
177 of IPC and sought permission to go
abroad and the learned Court below
granted
permission
by
order
dated
26.3.2019, which is quoted here in below;

" i=koyh is'kA iqdkj ij izkfFkZuh ds fo}ku
vf/koDrk mifLFkrA

izkfFkZuh dh vksj ls vkosnu bl vk'k; dk
izLrqr fd;k x;k fd izLrqr izdj.k U;k;ky; esa o"kZ
2012 ls fopkjk/khu gS vkSj dkQh le; iwoZ vkjksi
fojfpr gks pqdk gSA vkSj og fu;fer :i ls gkftj
vnkyr gS fdUrq vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk xokg izLrqr
ugh fd, x, gSA izkfFkZuh is'ks ls fpfdRld gS vkSj
o"kZ 2012 es eokuk uxjikfydk dh ps;jesu jgh gS
fdUrq lRrk i{k ds ncko ds dkj.k mlds fo:)
vkjksi i= iqfyl }kjk U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky fd;k
x;k gSA ftlls mls ekufld ruko gSA mldh iq=h
fczVsu es jgdj i<+kbZ dj jgh gSA izkfFkZuh mlls
feyus tkuk pkgrh gS fdUrq dk;kZy; }kjk ikliksVZ
tek djus gsrq dgk tkrk gS rks mls ekufld ihM+k
gksrh gSA vkSj ikliksVZ tek djus ij og viuh iq=h
ls feyus ls oafpr gks tk;sxhA izkfFkZuh }kjk eqdnek
yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku iq=h ls feyus gsrq fczVsu tkus
dh vuqefr gsrq ;kpuk fd;k gSA

izk-i= ij fo}ku vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh }kjk
fojks/k djrs gq, izk-i= fujLr fd, tkus dh ;kpuk
fd;k gSA

lquk ,oa i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

i=koyh ds ifj'khyu ls fofnr gS fd izdj.k
o"kZ 2012 dh ?kVuk ls lEcaf/kr gSA vkSj izdj.k es
iqfyl }kjk foospuk mijkar i;kZIr lk{; ikrs gq,
vkjksi i= U;k;ky; nkf[ky fd;k gSA ;g rF; lgh
gS fd izdj.k o"kZ 2012 ls yfEcr gS vkSj vfHk;kstu
i{k dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{kh izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gSA
izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ks esa izkfFkZuh dks l'krZ
fons'k tkus dh vuqefr iznku dh tk ldrh gSA

vkns'k

izkfFkZuh dk izk-i= bl 'krZ ds lkFk Lohdkj
fd;k tkrk gS fd izkfFkZuh bl vk'k; dk 'kiFk i=
nkf[ky djsxh fd og izR;sd frfFk ij }kjk
odkyru U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr jgsxh rFkk ,d yk[k
:i, dk ,Q-Mh-vkj- U;k;ky; esa bl vk'k; dk
nkf[ky djsxh fd ;fn mlds }kjk U;k;ky; vkns'k
dk mYy?kau fd;k tkrk gS rks mDr ,Q-Mh-vkj-
jkT; ljdkj ds gd esa tCr gks tk;sxkA i=koyh
fu;r fnukad 15-04-2019 dks is'k gksA

g0 viBhr

26@03@2019

1⁄4va'kqeu /kqUuk1⁄2

U;kf;d eftLVasV]

eokuk] esjBA

6. The petitioner complied with the
condition imposed by learned Court
below by filing affidavit and the FDR.;
that the grievance of the petitioner is that
although the petitioner has completed all
the formalities as was required by the
Regional
Passport
Office,
yet
the
respondent
no.3(
Regional
Passport
Officer, Ghaziabad) by his order dated
28.5.2019, has issued passport only for a
period of one year, subject to payment of
penalty amounting to Rs. 5000/-. which is
arbitrary and illegal. In support of his
submission learned Counsel has relied
upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court passed in Writ-C No.59959
of 2016 ( Mohd. Farid Vs. Union of India
& another) decided on 20.12.2016.

7. Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of Union of India submits that the
Regional Passport Officer is empowered
to impound/revoke passport under Section
10 of Passport Act, 1967 and grounds
thereof have been mentioned in Clause(a)
to (h) of sub-Section 3 of Section 10 of
the Act.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India
1978(1) SCC 248, has observed that subsection 5 of Section 10 of the Passports
Act, 1967 requires the Passport Authority
impounding the passport to record reasons
1 All. Dr. Neera Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1101
of making such order and the necessity of
giving
reasons
has
obviously
been
introduced in the sub-section so that it
may act as a healthy check against abuse
or misuse of power. If the reasons given
are not relevant and there is no nexus
between reasons and the ground on which
the passport was impounded, it would be
open to the holder of the passport to
challenge the order of impounding in a
Court of law and if the Court is satisfied
that the reasons are extraneous or
irrelevant, the Court would struck down
the order.

9. The Apex Court in the case of
Suresh Nanda Vs. CBI 2008(3) SCC
6744 has held that impounding of a
passport has civil consequence and
therefore, the Authorities are duty bound
to afford opportunity of hearing to the
person aggrieved.

10. Suffice to note that there is no
doubt about the discretion vested with
the
Authority
in
terms
of
the
provisions of Section 10 of the Act,
but that is not at all mandatory to
impound or caused to be impounded
the passport or any travel document if
proceedings in respect of offence
merely
alleged
to
have
been
committed by the holder of the
passport pending in the Court . The
pendency of criminal offence against
the holder of the passport would not
automatically results in impounding of
the passport

11. It will not be out of place to
mention here that in the case of the
husband of petitioner, this Court has been
pleased to pass the following order in
Writ-C No. 39572 of 2018 ( Naresh
Chandra Vs. Union of India and 3 others);

"..............In the instant case, passport
of the petitioner was impounded by the
Regional Passport officer Ghaziabad on
the
count
that
the
petitioner
had
suppressed certain material facts. The
facts stated were relating to subsequent
criminal cases wherein the Investigating
Agency had filed negative police report
under section 173 of the Cr.P.C."

Having considered the facts of the
case, this Court by the impugned order
dated 16.1.2019, directed the Regional
Pass Officer Ghaziabad to reconsider the
decision for impounding of passport by
taking into consideration the facts relating
to the criminal cases concerned and by
ignoring suppression of facts relating to
the cases aforesaid. In pursuance of the
order dated 16.1.2019, a passport has
already been issued in favour of the
petitioner but that is subject to final
decision of this petition for writ. As
already
stated,
the
passport
was
impounded on the count of suppression of
facts but in the light of the order dated
16.1.2019, ignoring that aspect of the
matter, the passport has now been
released.

Looking to all the facts of the case
specially in view of the fact that the cases
concerned are having no material effect
relating to the conduct and character of
the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to
make the issuance of passport absolute.

In view of the facts stated above, the
writ petition is disposed of by making
issuance of the passport by Regional
Passport Officer Ghaziabad, absolute and
without the condition of subject to final
decision of the present writ petition."

12. Submission of learned Counsel
for the petitioner that non disclosure of
the pendency of criminal case cannot be
taken as a material suppression of the fact
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for impounding the passport of the
petitioner has substance. Moreover, the
petitioner is a lady doctor having political
background.
Her
daughter
Nishitha
Chandra
is
doing
her
Ph.D
in
Biotechnology from the University of
Manchester, U.K and the petitioner has
reason to visit her daughter who is
studying abroad. The criminal case taken
note by the Passport Authority is of minor
nature under Sections 177 and 188 of
I.P.C. which provides punishment for
maximum period of six months and one
month respectively and that too has been
registered
due
to
alleged
political
vengeance. Moreover, the offence in
question is not against property or person.

13. For ready reference, provisions
of Sections 177 and 188 of IPC is
reproduced below as follows;

177. Furnishing false information.-
Whoever, being legally bound to furnish
information on any subject to any public
servant, as such, furnishes, as true,
information on the subject which he
knows or has reason to believe to be false,
shall
be
punished
with
simple
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both;

or, if the information which he is
legally bound to give respects the
commission of an offence, or is required
for the purpose of preventing the
commission of an offence, or in order to
the apprehension of an offender, with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.

188. Disobedience to order duly
promulgated
by
public
servant.-
Whoever, knowing that, by an order
promulgated by a public servant lawfully
empowered to promulgate such order, he
is directed to abstain from a certain act, or
to take certain order with certain property
in
his
possession
or
under
his
management, disobeys such direction,
shall, if such disobedience causes or tends
to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury,
or risk of obstruction, annoyance or
injury, to any person lawfully employed,
be punished with simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to one month or
with fine which may extend to two
hundred rupees, or with both; and if such
disobedience causes or trends to cause
danger to human life, health or safety, or
causes or tends to cause a riot or affray,
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both.

Explanation.-It is not necessary that
the offender should intend to produce
harm, or contemplate his disobedience as
likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that
he knows of the order which he disobeys,
and that his disobedience produces, or is
likely to produce, harm.

14. Initially, the FIR was lodged
under Sections 188, 171G, IPC and
Section 127(ka) of The Representation of
the People Act, but after investigation,
charge sheet has been submitted under
Sections 177 and 188 of IPC as is clear
from Annexure-10 to the writ petition. In
the
present
case,
very
basis
for
impounding the passport of the petitioner
is only pendency of a criminal case as
stated above, but the fact remains that the
competent Court has granted permission
by passing a reasoned order and thus, it
goes without saying that the reason
disclosed by the Regional Passport
1 All. AGME Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors.
1103
Officer, Ghaziabad for impounding the
passport of the petitioner has no legs to
stand.

15. In view of the discussion made
here in above, this petition is disposed of
with the direction to the Regional
Passport
Officer,
Ghaziabad
to
reconsider the decision of impounding the
passport of the petitioner, without taking
note of the pendency of a criminal case,
within a period of one month from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of
this order.

16. Before parting with the case, we
feel it necessary in the ends of justice to
direct the concerned Court below to
decide the Criminal Case No. 430 of 2012
under Section 188 and 177 IPC, P.S.
Mawana pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate,
Mawana,
Meerut,
in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of 6
months from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order.

17. Registry of this Court is directed
to send a copy of this order to the learned
District Judge, Meerut for compliance
within a week from today.

18. With the above observations,
this petition stands disposed of.
-------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 16516 of 2019

AGME Marketing Pvt. Ltd. &Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Canara Bank &Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rakesh Pande

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kartikeya Saran, Sri Arvind
Srivastava

SARFAESI ACT,2002-Section 14; Transfer
of
Property
Act,1882-Section
65AUnregistered Rent agreement intending
to create an interest over the secured
asset for a period exceeding 3 years
without reserving a right of re-entry - is
violative
of
Section
65-A-Petitioners
cannot resist action of bank.
Viewed in that light it is evident that the lessor
intended to create an interest over the
secured asset for a period exceeding three
years and did not reserve a right of re-entry in
case rent was not paid. Clause-7 is thus
evidently in violation of the injunct comprised
in clause (e) of sub-section (2) also. The Court
consequently
comes
to
the
irresistible
conclusion that the Rent Agreement did not
meet the requirements placed by clauses (a)
and (e) ofSection 65-A(2). (para 24)

B. Transfer of Property Act,1882-Section
107 read with Section 17 and 49 of the
Registration Act,1908-lease exceeding
one
year
has
to
be
compulsorily
registered under Section 107 of the
Act,1882 read with Section 17 and 49 of
the Registration Act,1908.

C. SARFAESI ACT,2002-Section 13(13)-
restrain borrower from transferring by
way of sale, lease or otherwise the
secured asset after receipt of the notice
u/s13(2) without prior written consent
of the secured creditor.

The contention that the statutory restraint
engrafted in Section 13 (13) of the SARFAESI
Act operates only against the lessor/original
debtor is misconceived. The creation of a
tenancy is the formation of a contract based
upon the action of two parties assenting to
enter into a legal relationship. The acceptance