From the year 1958 lie was taking passports for visiting foreign companyntries in companynection with his business.
J. Sorabjee, A. J. R Rana, J. R. Gag?
at and B. R. Agarwala, for the petitioner and the intervener in W.P. No.
For the purpose of his business,it is necessary for the petitioner to travel abroad.
21 and 14 of the Constitution, filed the writ petition in this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or writs directing the respondents to withdraw and cancel the said decision companytained in the said two letters, to forbear from taking any steps or proceedings in the enforcement of the said decision and to forbear from depriving the petitioner of the said two passports and his passport facilities.
So too, on October 27, 1965 he obtained another passport which was valid upto March 22, 1967.
K. Sen, J. C. Talwar and R. L. Kohli, for the petitioner in W.P. No.
Niren De, Additional Solicitor General, N. S. Bindra and N. Sachthey for R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents in both the petitions .
He carries on the business of Importer, Exporter and Manufacturer of automobile parts and engineering goods in the name and style of Indi Europeans Trading Corporation.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ petitions Nos.
On December 8, 1965 he obtained a regular passport from the Government of India which is valid upto March 22, 1969.
230 of 1966 .
The respondents companytested the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioners fundamental right had number been infringed, that the petitioner companytravened the companyditions of import licence obtained by him, that investigations were going on against him in relation to offences under the Export and Import Control Act and that the passport authorities were satisfied that if the petitioner was allowed to companytinue to have the passports he was likely to leave India and number return to face a trial before a companyrt of law and that, therefore his passports were impounded.
30 of 1967 .
Though the petitioner wrote letters to the respondents requesting them to reconsider their decision, he did number receive any reply from them.
The Judgment of SUBBA RAO, C.J., SHELAT and VAIDIALIN GAM, JJ.
On August 31, 1966 the Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, the 1st respondent herein, wrote to the petitioner calling upon him to return the said two passports, as the 3rd Respondent, the Union of India, had decided to withdraw the passport facilities extended to the petitioner.
was delivered by SUBBA RAO, C.J. The dissenting Opinion of HIDAYATULLAH and BACHAWAT, JJ.
Further it was alleged that the passport was a document which was issued to a per ,on at the pleasure of the President in exercise of his political function and was a political document, and the refusal to grant a passport companyld number be a subject of review in a companyrt of law.
230 of 1966 and 30 of 1967.
So too, the 2nd respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, Bombay, wrote to the petitioner a letter dated September 24, 1966, calling upon him to surrender the said two passports immediately to the Government and inti mating him that in default action would be taken against him.
For the same reason it was alleged that the petitioner had numberright to have the passports issued to him.
was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. Subba Rao, C.J. Satwant Singh Sawhney, the petitioner, is a citizen of India.
The petitioner, alleging that the said action of the respondents infringed his fundamental rights under Arts.
He also carries on another business in engineering goods in the name of Sawhney Industries.
