Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Subba Rao, C.J., C.A. Vaidialingam, J.M. Shelat, M. Hidayatullah and R.S. Bachawat

JUDGMENT

K. Subba Rao, C.J.

1. Satwant Singh Sawhney, the petitioner is a citizens of India. He carries on the business of Importer, Exporter and Manufacture of automobile parts and engineering goods in the name and style of Indi-Europeans Trading Corporation. he also carries on another business in engineering goods in the name of "Sawhney Industries". For the purpose of his business it is necessary for the petitioner to travel abroad. From the year 1958 he was taking passports for visiting foreign countries in connection with his business. On December 8, 1965 be obtained a regular passport form the Government of India which is valid upon March 22, 1969. So too, on October 27, 1965 he obtained another passport which was valid upto March 22, 1967. 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. 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 intimating him that in default action would be taken against him. Though the petitioner wrote letters to the respondents requesting them to reconsider their decision he did not receive any reply from them. The petitioner alleging that the said action of the respondents infringed his fundamental rights under Arts. 21 and 14 of the Constitution file 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 contained 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.

2. The respondents contested the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner's fundamental right had not been infringed, that the petitioner contravened the conditions 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 continue to have the passports he was likely to leave India and not return to face a trial before a court of law and that therefore his passports were impounded. Further it was alleged that the passport was a document which was issued to a person at the pleasure of the President in exercise of his political function and was a political document, and the refusal to grant a passport could not be a subject of review in a court of law. For the same reason it was alleged tha........