LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Passport Act, 1967; S. 10(3) (C ) –
Constitution of India; Art. 19 and 21 --
Facts of the Case : Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on 1/06/1976 under the Passport Act 1967. The regional passport officer, New Delhi, issued a letter dated 2/7/1977 addressed to Maneka Gandhi, in which she was asked to surrender her passport under section 10(3)(c)of the Act in public interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter.

Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to the Regional Passport officer, New Delhi seeking in return a copy of the statement of reasons for such order. However, the government of India, Ministry of External Affairs refused to produce any such reason in the interest of general public. Later, a writ petition was filed by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the government of India as violating her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:
1. Whether right to go abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.
2. Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said article.
3. Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14,19(1) (a) and 21 of the constitution.
4. Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of the principle of natural justice.

Judgement and the Guidelines Issued:
>> To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorizes the passport authority to impound a passport “in the interest of the general public”, it violates Article 14 as it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority.
>> Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power as it doesn’t provide for a hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport is impounded.
>> Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article as does not prescribe ‘procedure’ within the meaning of that article and the procedure practiced is worst.
>> Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) since it permits restrictions to be imposed on the rights guaranteed by these articles even though such restrictions cannot be imposed under articles 19(2) and 19(6).
>> A new doctrine of post decisional theory was evolved.
>> One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21.
>> This law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.
>> It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
>> The rule was an enabling law which must also be “just, fair and reasonable”.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65 (C) and (f) – Admissibility of public document – Secondary evidence of content of document when the original public document is lost or destroyed – Held: Under S. 65 clauses (a) and (c) secondary evidence was admissible -- It is held that a case may fall both under clauses (a) or (c) and (f) in which case secondary evidence would be admis-sible. It was held that clauses (a) and (c) were independent of clause (f) and even an ordinary copy would, therefore, be admissible -- As stated above the case that the original was no longer available in Court records and the certified copy was lost has not been disbelieved -- Thus the ordinary copy of the earlier judgment was admissible in evidence and had been correctly marked as an exhibit by the trial court.

Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ; Order XIII, Rule 3 –
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 : Art. 45, Sec. 35 –
Indian Registration Act, 1908; Sec.17,49 –
Hindu Succession Act, 1955 –
Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Order VII Rule 11—Difference between Memorandum of family settlement and Family Settlement – the alleged memorandum of family settlement divided the entire property between plaintiff and defendant and there is relinquishment of the rights of other heirs of the properties and as such it is Family Settlement and not memo (Para 11) – memo does not create any right -- the document was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act as there was relinquishment of share – it should be stamped in proper manner as specified in the Indian Stamp Act – document also being not stamped could not have been accepted in evidence (Para 13) -- whether the said document could have been accepted by the trial court in evidence or not -- whether the said unregistered and properly not stamped document which was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose -- Held: the same are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition – unstampped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded by paying stamp with penalty.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; S. 166 -- As to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S. 138/147 ----- Compounding of offence punishable under section 138 N. I. Act ----- Guidelines given by the Apex Court for settlement of the offence ----

THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a
subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.
 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; S. 138; Security Cheque –The word Security Cheque has been used in the agreement -- The said expression refers to the cheques being towards repayment of installments -- The repayment becomes due under the agreement, the moment the loan is advanced and the installment falls due -- Once the loan was disbursed and installments have fallen due on the date of the cheque as per the agreement, dishonour of such cheques would fall under Section 138 of the Act -- The cheques undoubtedly represent the outstanding liability.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 125 – Precondition for grant of maintenance -- Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife -- The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her.

Limitation Act, 1877, section 17, 21, 22 --- Civil Procedure Code; Order 1 Rule 10. Order 22 Rule 4 and Sections 151 & 153 ---- Whether the legal representatives of deceased can be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code where such defendant expired prior to the filing of the suit particularly when the application filed by the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed earlier as not maintainable ---- Held: merely because the earlier application filed by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed on 09.09.2009 as not maintainable, it will not prohibit the plaintiff from filing another application, which is maintainable in law (Para 8) ---- Bo adjudication of the application to bring legal representatives on record on merits by virtue of the order dated 09.09.2009----- The order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code, dated 09.09.2009, will not act as res-judicata----- Appeal allowed---- Trial Court is directed to implead the legal representatives of deceased.

Civil Procedure Code; Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 4 and Sections 151 &153 ----- Merely because of the non mentioning of the correct provision as Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code at the initial stage by the advocate for the plaintiff, the parties should not be made to suffer----- Courts are meant to do justice and not to decide the applications based on technicalities (Para14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 6 R. 17 ----- Amendment of plaint after a final decree is passed in a suit for partition ----- application for amendment of a mistake, said to be a clerical one, in the decree, seeking deletion of the Town Survey No. 462 and substituting the same by the Town Survey No. 463 ---- The village became a part of the municipality, by reason whereof a new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being Town Survey No. 463 ------ In the plaint and consequently in the preliminary decree as also in the final decree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake ----- The facts are not disputed. The identity of the suit land has not been changed ----- It is not a case where, as submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, one land is being substituted by another ----- The fact that the town survey No. 463 is a joint family property is not in dispute ----- As indicated hereinbefore, it is the same plot which was the subject matter of sale ----- Order of the High Court confirming the order of the Civil Court allowing the amendment is confirmed.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13  -  Whether the award of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- by the Family Court to the respondent(wife) was legally and factually sustainable -- Held: It is really unfortunate that neither the Family Court nor the High Court kept in mind these legal principles and passed cryptic and unreasoned orders -- Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties and in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband) because the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived him to know the reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount of Rs.15,00,000/- payable to his wife – Impugned order of the High Court and the order of the Family Court insofar as it relates to fixation of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- are set aside.