Page 1 of 10

Via Fax / Speed Post / Courier

To,
The Superintendent (Policy),
Regional Passport Office,
Hudco Trikoot-III,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
R. K Puram, New Delhi – 66.

REPLY TO YOUR SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

[Ref:25/Misc./17/Pol.Gr.II/M4861822 u/s 10(3)(c) of The Passports Act]

Sir,

Under instructions and on behalf of ‘my client’ Shri. Devashish Garg son of

Shri. Prem Chand Garg resident of A/8, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, East Punjabi

Bagh, New Delhi – 110026, being authorized in this behalf, I hereby put to you

the detailed reply of the above captioned Show Cause Notice (SCN) to be

acknowledged and taken on record.

The contents of the first, second and third paragraph of your above captioned

SCN are utterly wrong, misconceived, misdirected, misconceived, non-specific,

non-detailed, incorrect, absurd and are in sheer transgression of the procedure

prescribed by law in this regard and are without any reasoned/rational and

conscionable basis and are thus denied and vehemently opposed in totality.

Please acknowledge the legal reply thereto as hereunder:

 Page 2 of 10

SUMMONS PENDING COMPLIANCE AS ALLEGED

a. It is categorically denied that any summon(s) issued u/s 108 of

Customs Act, 1962 is pending compliance by my client in any manner

whatsoever since he has already appeared before the DRI in response

to three such summon(s) way back on dated 09.02.17, 13.02.17 and

21.02.17 respectively. On this count, be pleased to verify the correct

facts and figures from the office of the DRI before alleging anything

on your own frolic. Be further pleased to substantiate your allegations

on this count with cogent material and evidence to support and base

the same.

b. In order to verify the veracity of your allegations on this count, the

undersigned has already written to the DRI thereby seeking necessary

information apropos any such pending compliance. A copy of letter

dated 27.10.2017 is enclosed herewith for your worthy reference as

Enclosure-1.

c. That my client is a young boy of 23 years of age who returned to India

in the year June 2015 after completing his formal education from

United Kingdom and started his own independent business in the

name and style of Vi Farm Organics Ltd.

d. That on 22.12.2016 the sleuths of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

(DRI) carried out search operations in the office premises of M/s Shri.

Lal Mahal Ltd which is a company managed by my client’s family

 Page 3 of 10

members in various respective capacities and of which ‘my client’

is/was neither a share holder, nor a Director and nor even an

employee.

e. That despite this, the sleuths of DRI illegally seized the passport of my

client without any power or authority to seize the same vide

panchanama dated 22.12.2016 which was lying in the office of VI

Farm Organics Ltd which co-incidentally is located in the same

building from where M/s Shri. Lal Mahal Ltd. runs its corporate office

from.

f. That my client as such is not even remotely connected with the affairs

and the day to day functioning of M/s Shri. Lal Mahal Ltd and the

only link between my client and M/s Shri. Lal Mahal Ltd. is that he is

the fortunate son of the unfortunate promoters of M/s Shri. Lal Mahal

Ltd.

NOTE: All these submissions form part of the petitions filed by my

client in W.P (C) 7900/17 and LPA 628/17 and after considering the

same in all material particulars, the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

was pleased to direct the DRI to release the Passport of my client vide

order dated 22.09.2017.

 Page 4 of 10

FACTUAL CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE

g. That for the release of his passport from the custody of the DRI, my

client initially filed a Writ petition bearing W.P (C) 7900/17 before the

Delhi High Court which was disposed off on dated 12.09.2017. A

copy of order dated 12.09.2017 passed by HMJ Vibhu Bakhru is

enclosed herewith for your worthy reference as Enclosure-2.

h. That by virtue of the said order the DRI onwardly transmitted the

passport of my client to your good office vide its letter dated 27.09.17,

a copy whereof is enclosed for your worthy reference as Enclosure-3.

i. Being aggrieved of the said onward transmission of my client’s

passport by the DRI to your good office, my client filed an appeal

against the said order dated 12.09.2017 passed in W.P (C) 7900/17

before the Division Bench-II of the Delhi High Court vide LPA no.

628/2017. The said LPA was allowed thereby holding that the onward

transmission of the passport from DRI to your good office was illegal

and was bad in law and directions for the release of my client’s

passport were accordingly issued. A copy of order dated 22.09.2017 is

enclosed for your worthy reference as Enclosure-4.

 Page 5 of 10

DELIBERATE NON-COMPLIANCE OF HIGH COURT’S ORDER

BY THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, NEW DELHI

j. That in terms of order dated 22.09.2017 passed in LPA no. 628/2017,

my client made a formal representation to your good office for the

release of his passport as per the High Court’s diktat on dated

29.09.17, a copy whereof is enclosed herewith for your worthy

reference as Enclosure-5.

k. That despite clear and unequivocal directions of the Hon’ble High

Court to release the passport of my client, the Learned Regional

Passport Officer flatly refused to release the same on the stereotype

pretext that if the passport is released my client shall fly off from

India. The entire incident was embodied in a letter and was submitted

by the AR of my client in your good office vide diary no. 1606 dated

29.09.2017, a copy whereof is enclosed herewith as Enclosure-6.

l. That running from pillar to post with the Hon’ble High Court’s

directives in hand, my client once again made a representation to the

DRI on dated 03.10.2017 praying for the release of his passport, a

copy whereof is enclosed herewith as Enclosure-7.

m. That in response to the said representation, the DRI in turn, vide its

letter dated 05.10.2017, wrote to your good office expressing its

inability to release my client’s passport since the same was given in

the custody of your good-office vide their earlier letter dated

 Page 6 of 10

27.09.2017. A copy of DRI letter dated 05.10.17 is enclosed herewith

as Enclosure-8.

n. That interestingly thereafter on 06.10.2017 your good office, on frolic

of his own, was pleased to issue a Show Cause Notice u/s 10 (3) (c) of

Passports Act, 1967 to my client without releasing his passport. A

copy of SCN dated 06.10.17 is enclosed herewith for your worthy

reference as Enclosure-9.

o. That resultantly owing to the ex-facie disregard, willful and deliberate

disobedience of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by

the Learned Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, my client was

constrained to file a Contempt Petition before the Delhi High Court

vide diary no. 456040 and before the said petition could be listed

before the court, a copy thereof was served to the counsel for the DRI

and to the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi by hand to ensure

their presence before the court.

p. That on receipt of the said Contempt Petition, the Learned Regional

Passport Officer immediately released the passport of my client and

the same was received by him vide OIGS-Speed Post on dated

12.10.2017.

q. The my client thereafter did not pursue the Contempt Petition and did

not further get the same listed before the court.

 Page 7 of 10

r. That at present the physical custody of the said passport is with my

client.

THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER REPLY IS PERVERSE,

ILLEGAL AND DOES NOT CONFIRM TO THE PROCEDURE
AS LAID DOWN IN THE PASSPORTS ACT, 1967

s. That as per the procedure prescribed under the Passports Act, 1967, in

order to vary, impound or revoke a passport or a travel document, the

first and foremost pre-requisite is that a notice in writing has to be

issued u/s 10(1) of The Passports Act thereby asking the holder of the

Passport to deliver up the same before the Passport Officer.

t. That unless and until a notice u/s 10(1) is given to my client in

writing, the process of impounding his passport cannot be initiated and

as such on this score itself, the SCN under reply is perverse, illegal

and is not as per the procedure prescribed by law and is therefore

liable to be quashed and set-aside.

u. Be that as it may, non-issuance of a notice as is prescribed u/s 10(1) of

The Passports Act, 1967, in the attendant facts and circumstances of

the case, violates and jeopardizes the fundamental right of my client to

seek constitutional remedies under Article 226 or Article 32 of The

Constitution of India which he could have resorted to by assailing the

same before the court of law.

 Page 8 of 10

NOTE: All these averments are clearly recorded by the High Court in

its order dated 22.09.2017 passed in LPA no. 628/2017 and is as such

a subject matter of keen perusal by your good office.

NON-APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 10(3)(c) OF PASSPORTS ACT

v. That at the outset, on a bare perusal of the SCN under reply it can be

safely concluded that the said SCN has been issued by your good

office without properly reading and evaluating the provisions of The

Passports Act, 1967 and without the application of mind. It is

emphatically submitted that Sec. 10(3)(c) deals with a situation

governing the interests of sovereignty, integrity, security of India and

in the interests of friendly relations of India with any foreign country

or for the interests of the general public. Interestingly, none of these

grounds can even be remotely be said to be applicable in the attendant

facts and circumstances of the case.

w. That the movement and personal liberty of my client does in no way

affects or threats the sovereignty, integrity and security of India and in

no way does it improve or deteriorate the friendly relations of India

with other foreign countries. Similarly, no interest of general public is

served by jeopardizing the liberty of my client more particularly when

he is neither a director, nor a share-holder and nor an employee of M/s

Shri. Lal Mahal Ltd. against which the DRI has contemplated a legal
 Page 9 of 10

action. It is further reiterated at the cost of repetition that my client is

just a fortunate child of some unfortunate promoters of M/s Shri. Lal

Mahal Ltd. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can his passport be

impounded on these non-applicable, farce and baseless grounds.

NON-APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 12(1) (a)

Interestingly, the SCN is utterly bad even on this score also since

Section 12 (1)(a) deals with a contravention of Section 3 and makes it

a punishable offence. Section 3 of Passports Act is applicable to

persons who enter to or depart from the territory of India without a

valid passport or a travel document. On the flip side my client holds a

valid Indian Passport and the validity of his passport is nowhere under

cloud. As such, neither he contravenes Section 3 of the Act and nor

does he qualify to be punished u/s 12(1)(a) of The Passports Act,

1967. Your SCN under reply on this count is utterly absurd,

obnoxious, non-sense apart from being miserably bad in law.

In the light of the above discussion and the necessary elaboration of the

provisions of Passports Act, 1967 as taken up hereinabove, I sincerely advise

and call upon you to immediately withdraw the SCN under reply which, if not

withdrawn, can have serious repercussions entailing in judicial strictures being

passed against you for acting totally in defiance of the basic provisions of The

Passports Act, 1967 and for your ex-facie unbecoming conduct as a Passport
 Page 10 of 10

Officer. The SCN issued by you is blatantly and utterly illegal, perverse,

unconstitutional and is opposed to the basic principles of natural justice.

Last but not the least, it may be pointed out that the SCN under reply

categorically smells of deliberate colorable exercise of statutory power vested in

you so as to harass my client for your own vested interests and untoward

expectations from him.

My client further reserves right to prosecute you in individual capacity in a

court of competent jurisdiction for the above acts of commission and omissions

since the present SCN is based upon a concocted allegation that compliance of

summon(s) issued u/s 108 of Customs Act, 1962 is pending against him

whereas no such compliance is actually pending against him since 21st day of

February, 2017, a fact which has been confirmed to me telephonically by Shri.

Anirudh Singh, Intelligence Officer, DRI-Noida Regional Unit, Noida, Uttar

Pradesh today on dated 27th day of October 2017.

A copy of your SCN and the present reply stands retained by me for further

necessary action in this regard.

This 28th day of October 2017.

(FOR LEGAL MAGISTERS)