JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.: - Heard. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing. 2. The grievance of the petitioner relates to withholding of the passport issued to the petitioner, which was surrendered by the petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 19-3-2003, being without any justification and authority of law. 3. The petitioner was issued with the passport on 18-5-1993. However, on 19-9-2003 the petitioner was directed to surrender the said passport to the office of the respondent No. 1 and accordingly the petitioner along with his reply dated 11-11-2003 surrendered the said passport. It appears that the passport was ordered to be surrendered on the ground of alleged links of the petitioner with a banned association called SIMI. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner ceased to be the member of the said association having resigned therefrom since 1995. On that ground the petitioner requested the respondents to return the passport to the petitioner. However, the respondents did not return the passport and hence the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. The section 10(1) of the Passports Act, 1967, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act", empowers the passport authority to vary or cancel the conditions subject to which the passport was issued and also requires the holder of the passport to deliver the passport to the authority. However, an action under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act is contemplated only with the previous approval of the Central Government. In the case in hand, it is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that pursuant to the report from the police authorities, direction for surrender of the passport was issued on 19-9-2003. Apart from the intimation by the police authorities, the respondent No. 1 had no other ground for issuance of the latter dated 19-9-2003 and to direct the petitioner to surrender the passport. 5. Perusal of the affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondents as well as upon hearing the learned Advocate, it is evident that apart from issuing the letter dated 19-9-2003 for surrender of the passport, no further action in terms of section 10 of the said Act has been taken by the authorities in relation to the passport issued to the petitioner. 5. Perusal of the affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondents as well as upon hearing the learned Advocate, it is evident that apart from issuing the letter dated 19-9-2003 for surrender of the passport, no further action in terms of section 10 of the said Act has been taken by the authorities in relation to the passport issued to the petitioner. In the course of the hearing, the learned Advocates for the respondents were also not able to disclose any provision of law under which a passport could be detained by the authorities on the ground of mere suspicion and that in some past years the passport holder had some connection with the banned association. 6. Considering the materials on record, we find no justification for withholding of the petitioner's passport at this stage. Needless to say that in case the authorities have any justification to take appropriate action under the provisions of law in relation to the passport issued to the petitioner, certainly they would be entitled to do so by following the procedure known to law. However, as the matter stands today, the respondents have not been able to make out any case for withholding the passport of the petitioner. Being so, the petitioner is entitled for the direction for return of the passport, albeit with liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action as regards the passport, if there is any ground for the same and in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. In the result, therefore, on the limited ground mentioned above, the petition succeeds and the respondents are directed to return the passport to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. At the same time, liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action, if so required, in relation to the passport in accordance with the provisions of law. The rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 8. Office to issue forthwith the true copy of this order on payment of usual charges. Petition succeeds. -----