NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today sought response of the Centre on a plea by Congress leader Jagdish Tytler challenging an order of the passport authority impounding his passport for allegedly furnishing false details to them.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru took on record the submission of Additional Solicitor General Maninder Acharya that Tytler is at liberty to apply afresh for passport and his application will be considered uninfluenced from previous proceedings.
The law officer said the fresh passport application will be considered in accordance with the law and previous proceedings will not come in the way of deciding it.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on March 6 next year.
Tytler, in his plea, claimed that the passport officer has passed the impounding order, for allegedly furnishing false details for renewal of his travel document, in a "most highhanded and arbitrary manner".
The impounding order was passed by the regional passport officer on March 28, which was challenged before the appellate authority.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal after which the Congress leader approached the high court.
Advocate Arunabh Chowdhury, appearing for Tytler, said the appellate authority's June 25 order was without reasons and was against the settled law that a quasi-judicial has to record reasons in support of its conclusions.
"The respondent no.1 (appellate authority) therefore being a quasi-judicial authority ought to have recorded reasons especially when the act of impounding the petitioner's passport infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner (Tytler) to travel," he said.
During the hearing, the court observed that Tytler was denied a passport after he admittedly gave an incorrect statement in the application form but he has to be given passport at some point of time.
The high court had earlier imposed Rs 10,000 as costs on the leader and dismissed his plea against a show cause notice issued by the passport authorities for allegedly furnishing false details to them.
The CBI had earlier informed a trial court that while seeking renewal of his passport, Tytler had falsely submitted before the passport office that no criminal case was pending against him.
The trial court was also told that he had received the renewed passport even when his application seeking a no-objection certificate from the court was pending.
Tytler had told the trial court that a clerical mistake was committed in the application to the passport office.