# Mohammad Umar v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 299
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20480 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-umar-v-u-o-i-ors-52262
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Passport Act, 1967 - Sections 10(3)(e)
& (5) - Impounding of passport - Criminal
case relating to matrimonial dispute was
pending which was stayed by the High
Court - Mere pendency of a criminal was
made the basis for impounding the
passport - No reason regarding the
misuse of passport was recorded - Effect
- Held, prior to passing the order of
impounding passport, the passport officer
after
considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of each case has to record
reasons to arrive at a conclusion that due
to pending criminal proceedings in a
criminal court, the passport holder may
misuse the passport for avoiding his
appearance before the court and can delay
the conclusion of the the proceedings.
(Para 11 and 14)

B. Interpretation of Statute - Word 'may'
- Effect - Effect of using the word 'may' in
S. 10 (3) is that it is not necessary that in
every case falling under Section 3, the
passport officer is mandatorily required to
impound the passport. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ C No. 59959 of 2016; Mohd. Farid Vs U.O.I.
& anr. decided on 20.12.2016

## Text

7 All. Mohammad Umar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
299
Act obviously seeks to promote those goals.
Therefore, the interpretation of the said Act
must not only be liberal but it must be
informed by the values of the directive
principles. Therefore, an awareness of the
social perspective of the Act must guide the
interpretative process of the legislative
device."

 11. In view of the above, the
narrow and pedantic stand taken by the
Central Government cannot be accepted
and the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit
of
"Pradhan
Mantri
Garib
Kalyan
Package: Insurance scheme for health
workers fighting COVID-19".

7. Keeping in view the above
judgment, we are of the view that the
present case is very much covered by
'Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package
: Insurance Scheme for Health Workers
Fighting COVID-19' as the petitioner's
husband was a Ward Boy working in the
O.P.D. that was just opposite the Covid
Section. The pedantic view taken by the
authorities is without application of mind
that too with narrow interpretation of the
said Scheme. Such an interpretation would
be wholly contrary to the intention of the
said Scheme.

8. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 29.2.2024 is quashed and set
aside with a direction given on the
authorities concerned to implement the
Scheme
expeditiously.
The
petitioner
should be provided with the ex-gratia
payment in accordance with law preferably
within a period of three months from date.

9. With the above direction, the
writ petition is allowed.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 299
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 20480 of 2024

Mohammad Umar ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suhel Ahmed Azmi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Passport Act, 1967 - Sections 10(3)(e)
& (5) - Impounding of passport - Criminal
case relating to matrimonial dispute was
pending which was stayed by the High
Court - Mere pendency of a criminal was
made the basis for impounding the
passport - No reason regarding the
misuse of passport was recorded - Effect
- Held, prior to passing the order of
impounding passport, the passport officer
after
considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of each case has to record
reasons to arrive at a conclusion that due
to pending criminal proceedings in a
criminal court, the passport holder may
misuse the passport for avoiding his
appearance before the court and can delay
the conclusion of the the proceedings.
(Para 11 and 14)

B. Interpretation of Statute - Word 'may'
- Effect - Effect of using the word 'may' in
S. 10 (3) is that it is not necessary that in
every case falling under Section 3, the
passport officer is mandatorily required to
impound the passport. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ C No. 59959 of 2016; Mohd. Farid Vs U.O.I.
& anr. decided on 20.12.2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Suhel Ahmad Azmi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioner through this writ
petition has challenged the communication
dated 30.05.2023 issued by the Regional
Passport Officer, Vipin Khand, Gomti
Nagar, Lucknow whereby he has been
informed that decision has been taken to
impound the passport No. M1266202
issued in his favour on 20.08.2014, under
Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act,
1967 on the ground of pending criminal
case.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are
that pursuant to petitioner's application,
Passport No. M1266202 was issued to him
on 20.08.2014. The said passport is valid
up to 19.08.2024. The petitioner on the
basis of the aforesaid passport was residing
in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and was doing
a private job. Petitioner's wife Fatima
Jahara has lodged an F.I.R. against the
petitioner which has been registered as
Case Crime No. 25 of 2023 under Sections
498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4
of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of
Marriage) Act, 2019 at Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Ambedkar Nagar.
The investigating officer after completing
his investigation in the aforesaid crime had
submitted charge-sheet on 27.08.2023
before the competent court. The petitioner
and other accused of the aforesaid crime
have filed an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. before this Court at Lucknow
bearing Case No. 4935 of 2024 and the
Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 has
stayed the proceedings of the criminal case
pending before the Court concerned.

4. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has submitted that Section 10
(3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides
that the passport authority may impound or
cause to be impounded or revoked a
passport or travel document if proceedings
in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by the holder of the
passport or travel document are pending
before criminal court in India. He further
submits that under Section 10 (5) of the
Passports Act, 1967 provides that where the
passport
authority
makes
an
order
impounding a passport or travel document
under sub-section 3 of Section 10 of the
Passports Act, 1967, it shall record in
writing a brief statement of the reasons of
the making such order and furnish it to the
holder of the passport.

5. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has argued that the legislature
while enacting Section 3 of the Passports
Act, 1967 had conferred discretion to the
passport authority that in the case of
pending criminal proceedings against a
passport holder, he may impound the
passport. He further argues that the
legislature
in
Section
10
(3)
had
deliberately used word 'may' therefore
intention of the legislature is very clear that
a passport officer may impound the
passport
if
criminal
proceedings
are
pending against a passport holder but that
does not mean that the passport officer is
required to impound the passport of a
person in every case where the criminal
proceedings are pending against the said
person. The passport officer as per the
mandate of the legislature under Section 10
7 All. Mohammad Umar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
301
(3) (e) is required to consider each and
every case on its own facts and thereafter
by recording reasons of a possible misuse
of the passport for avoiding presence of the
passport holder before the court trying the
offence
or
possibility
of
delay
in
conclusion of the criminal proceedings, can
impound the passport.

6. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has further argued that when
Section 10 (3) (e) is read with Section 10
(5) of the Passports Act, 1967 it can easily
be inferred that the legislature had
mandated the passport officer to give
reasons for recording his satisfaction that a
case for impounding passport is made out
under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports
Act, 1967 but in the case of the petitioner
no reasons for recording satisfaction of the
passport officer has been given and in the
impugned
communication
dated
30.05.2023 it has been stated that because
of the pending criminal case before the
court,
petitioner's
passport
has
been
impounded under Section 10 (3) (e) of the
Passports Act, 1967.

7. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has vehemently argued that
since
the
decision
of
impounding
petitioner's passport is unreasoned and
without consideration of the necessary
facts, the said decision cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law.

8. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in support of his arguments
has
relied
on
the
judgment
dated
20.12.2016 rendered by a Divisional Bench
of this Court in Writ-C No. 59959 of 2016
and has contended that in the said judgment
it has categorically been held that the
passport officer is required to record
reasons for arriving at a conclusion that in
view of pending criminal case before the
court, impounding of passport is necessary
and
only
thereafter
the
order
for
impounding of passport can be passed,
whereas in the case of the petitioner no
such consideration has been done and
straightaway
his
passport
has
been
impounded, therefore the decision of the
passport officer cannot sustain in the eyes
of law.

9. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents has argued
that the passport officer is empowered to
impound passport of a person under
Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act,
1967 on the ground of pending criminal
proceedings against him and therefore the
passport officer while taking decision for
impounding petitioner's passport under Section
10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 in view of
the pending criminal case against the petitioner
in the competent court has acted strictly in
accordance with law. He further submits that
in view of the criminal case pending against
the petitioner in the competent court,
interference may not be shown by this Court in
the
impugned
communication
dated
30.05.2023.

10. We have considered the
arguments advanced by the learned counsels
appearing for the parties. We find that Section
10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides
that the passport authority may impound or
cause to be impounded a passport if the
proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to
have been committed by the holder of the
passport are pending before the criminal court
in India. For ready reference Section 10 of the
Passports Act, 1967 is extracted as under :-

 "10. Variation, impounding and
revocation of passports and travel
documents.-
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (1)The passport authority may,
having regard to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 6 or any notification
under section 19, vary or cancel the
endorsements on a passport or travel
document or may, with the previous
approval of the Central Government, vary
or cancel the conditions (other than the
prescribed conditions) subject to which a
passport or travel document has been
issued and may, for that purpose, require
the holder of a passport or a travel
document, by notice in writing, to deliver
up the passport or travel document to it
within such time as may be specified in the
notice and the holder shall comply with
such notice.

 (2) The passport authority may,
on the application of the holder of a
passport or a travel document, and with the
previous
approval
of
the
Central
Government also vary or cancel the
conditions (other than the prescribed
conditions) of the passport or travel
document.

 (3) The passport authority may
impound or cause to be impounded or
revoke a passport or travel document,-

 (a) if the passport authority is
satisfied that the holder of the passport or
travel document is in wrongful possession
thereof;

 (b) If the passport or travel
document was obtained by the suppression
of material information or on the basis of
wrong information provided by the holder
of the passport or travel document or any
other person on his behalf:

 Provided that if the holder of such
passport obtains another passport, the
passport authority shall also impound or
cause to be impounded or revoke such
other passport.

 (c) if the passport authority
deems it necessary so to do in the interests
of the sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of India, friendly relations of
India with any foreign country, or in the
interests of the general public;

 (d) if the holder of the passport or
travel document has, at any time after the
issue of the passport or travel document,
been convicted by a court in India for any
offence involving moral turpitude and
sentenced
in
respect
thereof
to
imprisonment for not less than two years;

 (e) if proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed by
the holder of the passport or travel
document are pending before a criminal
court in India;

 (f) if any of the conditions of the
passport or travel document has been
contravened;

 (g)if the holder of the passport or
travel document has failed to comply with a
notice under sub-section (1) requiring him
to deliver up the same;

 (h) if it is brought to the notice of
the passport authority that a warrant or
summons for the appearance, or a warrant
for the arrest, of the holder of the passport
or travel document has been issued by a
court under any law for the time being in
force or if an order prohibiting the
departure from India of the holder of the
passport or other travel document has been
made by any such court and the passport
authority is satisfied that a warrant or
7 All. Mohammad Umar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
303
summons has been so issued or an order
has been so made.

 (4) The passport authority may
also revoke a passport or travel document
on the application of the holder thereof.

 (5) Where the passport authority
makes an order varying or cancelling the
endorsements on, or varying the conditions
of, a passport or travel document under
sub-section (1) or an order impounding or
revoking a passport or travel document
under sub-section (3), it shall record in
writing a brief statement of the reasons for
making such order and furnish to the holder
of the passport or travel document on
demand a copy of the same unless in any
case the passport authority is of the opinion
that it will not be in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of India, friendly relations of India
with any foreign country or in the interests
of the general public to furnish such a copy.

 (6) The authority to whom the
passport authority is subordinate may, by
order in writing, impound or cause to be
impounded or revoke a passport or travel
document on any ground on which it may
be impounded or revoked by the passport
authority and the foregoing provisions of
this section shall, as far as may be, apply in
relation to the impounding or revocation of
a passport or travel document by such
authority.

 (7) A court convicting the holder
of a passport or travel document of any
offence under this Act or the rules made
thereunder may also revoke the passport or
travel document: Provided that if the
conviction is set aside on appeal or
otherwise the revocation shall become
void.
 (8) An order of revocation under
sub-section (7) may also be made by an
appellate court or by the High Court when
exercising its powers of revision.

 (9) On the revocation of a
passport or travel document under this
section the holder thereof shall, without
delay, surrender the passport or travel
document, if the same has not already been
impounded, to the authority by whom it has
been revoked or to such other authority as
may be specified in this behalf in the order
of revocation."

11. We find that the legislature
under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports
Act, 1967 had deliberately used word
'may'
meaning
thereby
that
in
the
eventualities enumerated under Section 3 of
the Passports Act, 1967 of the passport
officer by recording reasons can impound
passport but it is not necessary that in every
case falling under Section 3 the passport
officer is mandatorily required to impound
the passport. The legislature under Section
10 (3) (e) has given power/discretion to the
passport authority that if he is satisfied then
he can impound the passport of a person on
the ground of pending proceedings in
relation to an offence in the criminal court,
therefore prior to passing the order of
impounding passport, the passport officer
after
considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of each case has to record
reasons to arrive at a conclusion that due to
pending criminal proceedings in a criminal
court, the passport holder may misuse the
passport for avoiding his appearance before
the court and can delay the conclusion of
the the proceedings.

12. The Division Bench of this
Court vide its judgment rendered on
20.12.2016 in Writ-C No. 59959 of 2016
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Mohd. Farid Vs. Union of India & Anr.)
had considered the purport of Section 10
(3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 and has
held that before impounding the passport of
a person, the passport authority is required
to record reasons for arriving at a
conclusion that the passport holder may
misuse the passport for avoiding his
appearance before the court concerned and
for delaying the conclusion of the criminal
proceedings. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment rendered in the case of Mohd.
Farid (supra) are extracted as under :-

 "After respective arguments have
been advanced, we have proceeded to
examine the provisions of the Passport Act,
1967 wherein section 10 confers power on
the Passport Authority to pass orders for
impounding/revocation of passports and
travel
documents.
The
grounds
of
impounding/revocation has been provided
under Clause (a) to (h) of sub-section 3 of
Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967. Subsection (5) of Section 10 obligates the
Passport Authority to give reasons for
making such an order. The relevant
provisions that have been invoked in the
present case is as follows:-

 "(3) The passport authority may
impound or cause to be impounded or
revoke a passport or travel document:-

 (e) if proceedings in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed by
the holder of the passport or travel
document are pending before a criminal
court in India

 (5) Where the passport authority
makes an order varying or cancelling the
endorsement on, or varying the conditions
of, a passport or travel document under
sub-section (1) or an order impounding or
revoking a passport or travel document
under sub-section (3), it shall record in
writing a brief statement of the reasons for
making such order and furnish to the holder
of the passport or travel document on
demand a copy of the same unless in any
case, the passport authority is of the
opinion that it will not be in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India,
friendly relations of India with any foreign
country or in the interests of the general
public to furnish such a copy."

 A bare perusal of the provisions
quoted above would go to show that the
Passport Authority under the Passports Act,
1967 has been conferred with the Authority
to
impound
or
caused
to
be
impounded/revoked a passport or travel
document if proceedings in respect of an
offence have been committed by the holder
of the passport or travel document are
pending before a criminal Court in India.
Sub-section 5 of Section 10 obligates the
Passport Authority to record in writing a
brief statement of reasons for making such
an order.

 Apex Court in the case of
Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India 1978
(1) SCC 248 has taken the view that subsection 5 of Section 10 of the Passports
Act, 1967 requires the Passport Authority
impounding the passport to record reasons
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
7 All. Mohammad Umar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
305
and if the Court is satisfied that the reasons
are extraneous or irrelevant, the Court
would struck down the order.

 Apex Court in the case of Suresh
Nanda vs. CBI 2008 (3) SCC 674 has
taken the view that impounding of passport
entails civil consequences and in view of
this, the Authorities are duty bound to give
opportunity of hearing to the person
concerned.

 There is no doubt on this fact that
discretion is vested with the Passport
Authority in terms of section 10 of the
Passports Act, 1967 but it is not at all
mandatory on the passport authority to
impound or caused to be impounded or
revoke a passport or travel document if
proceedings in respect of offence merely
alleged to have been committed by the
holder of the passport or travel document
are pending before the Court in India.

 Pendency of criminal case against
the
holder
of
passport
would
not
automatically result in impounding of his
passport and the mere fact that certain
conditions specified in Section 10 (3) of the
Act, on the basis of which a passport can be
impounded, subsists in a given case cannot
by itself result in impounding of passport
automatically
and
once
the
Passport
Authority, in his wisdom, chooses to
exercise his discretion in the said direction
as to whether on account of pendency of
such criminal case, the passport in question
should be impounded or not, then, at the
said point of time, the Passport Officer
should apply his mind looking into the
nature of the criminal cases that have been
lodged/initiated against the petitioner and
further that if a passport is not impounded,
then there are possibilities that the
incumbent would not at all face the
criminal cases. Even if criminal case is
pending against a person that by itself does
not
require
passport
authority
to
impound/revoke the passport in every given
case. It is only in appropriate cases for
adequate and cogent reasons such an order
could be passed. While passing order of
impounding/revocation of passport, merely
by quoting the requirement mentioned in
the
section
is
clearly
indicative
of
circumstance that order has been passed
without
there
being
any
objective
consideration of the subject matter."

13. We find that a criminal case
relating to a matrimonial discord is pending
against the petitioner in the criminal court
and proceedings of the said case have been
stayed by the High Court and mediation
proceedings in between the parties are in
process.

14. The passport officer in the
present matter has taken decision to
impound
petitioner's
passport
under
Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act,
1967 only on the ground that proceedings
related to an offence are pending against
the petitioner before criminal court but he
has not considered the facts of the criminal
case and has also not recorded reasons to
arrive at a conclusion that petitioner may
misuse his passport for avoiding his
presence before the criminal court and also
for delaying the conclusion of the criminal
proceedings and therefore it is necessary to
impound his passport under Section 10 (3)
(e) of the Passports Act, 1967. More so we
find that Section 10 (5) of the Passports
Act, 1967 mandates the passport authority
to give brief reasons for passing the order
for impounding of the passport but in the
present case impugned communication
dated 30.05.2023 does not disclose that the
passport
authority
has
made
any
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consideration of the facts of the case and
has recorded reasons. Ergo, the impugned
decision
for
impounding
petitioner's
passport contained in the impugned order
dated 30.05.2023 cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law.

15. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The
impugned
decision
of
impounding
petitioner's
passport
No.
M1266202
contained
in
impugned
order
dated
30.05.2023 is quashed. The Respondent
No. 2 is directed to reconsider the entire
matter, grant an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh
order within a period of six weeks from the
date of service of a copy of this order.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 306
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 31553 of 2002

Bhukhal ....Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Gorakhpur & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.P. Mishra, Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, Sri
R.K. Gupta, Sri Upendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Section 10(2) &
11(2) - Objection u/s 11(2) of the Ceiling
Act filed by the petitioner on the basis of a
registered sale deed executed in his
favour
before
the
relevant
date,
24.01.1971, was allowed after hearing the
objector as well as the State - Appeal filed
by the State after five years was allowed
by the Appellate Court, and the matter
was remanded back before the Prescribed
Authority for fresh consideration - Appeal
filed in a similar situation of the remaining
area of the same plot was allowed by the
Commissioner.
Held:
Order
of
the
Prescribed Authority cannot be set aside
in appeal unless there is sufficient ground
for
setting
aside
the
order
of
the
Prescribed
Authority.
Remand
order
passed by the Commissioner in appeal is
nothing but an abuse of the process of
law, as the Prescribed Authority has
already decided the objection of the
petitioner
on
merit,
taking
into
consideration the sale deed executed in
the year 1960, which has not yet been
cancelled. (Para 12, 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Ramadhar Singh Vs Prescribed Authority & ors.,
1994 (Supp 3) SCC 702

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Satyendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for
the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
plot no. 156 area 0.50 Dismal situated in
village Ahirauli Rai, Tappa Parwarpar,
Pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, Tehsil Kasya,
District-Deoria
at
present
District
Kushinagar was purchased by the petitioner
by way of a registered sale deed executed
in his favour on 10.03.1960. In proceeding
under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960
hereinafter to referred as Ceiling Act, the
aforementioned plot no. 156 was declared