MANMOHAN SARIN ( 1 ). Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. ( 2 ). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 10 (3) (b)and (h) of the passport Act, 1957, impounding the passport of the petitioner bearing No. A8112592 dated 11. 8. 1999. (2) Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Anil Sharma, counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that the impugned order had been passed without the service of show cause notice. He submitted that it was only on 20. 2. 2001 that the notice/order was collected from the Passport office. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide citizen and an IIT Graduate, who has been striving hard to succeed in business. Unfortunately, the petitioner has suffered financial crisis, which led to complaints cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, being filed against the petitioner. He submits that 7 out of 11 cases have been compromised, while in three more cases the trial court passed orders permitting the petitioner to travel abroad on intimation being given about the travel plans. He submits that the petitioner is making bona fide attempts to settle all these matters. He needs to travel abroad for business purposes so that fresh impetus can be given to his business. ( 3 ). Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. J. K. Sood submits that there was no option but to paste the show cause notice dated 9. 11. 2000, as the petitioner was not available at his known address and the premises were found locked. He submitted that order was passed on 14. 12. 2000 after no reply was received. He relies on Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of india and another reported at AIR 1978 SC 597 as well as Hajra Iqbal Menon Vs. Union of india and others 66 (1997) Delhi Law Times 62. in support of his submissions. Mr. Sood also disputes the factual position with regard to compromise in cases. He submits that the petitioner is involved in as many as 8 cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act and thus ground for impounding of Passport was duly made out. ( 4 ). in support of his submissions. Mr. Sood also disputes the factual position with regard to compromise in cases. He submits that the petitioner is involved in as many as 8 cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act and thus ground for impounding of Passport was duly made out. ( 4 ). Be that as it may, the position that emerges is that the impugned order was passed without the petitioner getting an opportunity to show cause against impounding of the passport either on account of the petitioner s non-availability at the known place of residence or otherwise. ( 5 ). Counsel for both the parties are agreed that the petitioner may be given an opportunity of showing cause against the impounding of his passport. Let the petitioner make a representation against impounding of his passport based on the order dated 14. 12. 2001. Learned counsel submits that he will not raise any objection on account of the present opportunity being a post decisional opportunity. Counsel for the respondents state that they would consider the matter afresh and take into consideration any material and subsequent developments, as may be brought to their attention by the petitioner in support of his contention for release of passport. ( 6 ). Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no question of the petitioner travelling abroad since the passport is lying with respondent No. 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that he will file his detailed representation within two weeks from today. Respondents will grant a hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after hearing. Petitioner to appear before the Regional Passport Officer on 20. 2. 2002 at 2pm. Decision will be taken by the Regional Passport Officer on or before 31. 3. 2002 by a speaking order. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above tern.