ORDER B.S. Patil , J.—In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Mangalore to return his passport which was seized by the 2nd respondent during the course of an enquiry in the proceedings initiated in O.R. No. 7/2009. The passport of the petitioner was seized by the 2nd respondent - Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Mangalore when the petitioner arrived on 15-9-2009 to Bajpe International Airport, Mangalore from Dubai. The officers of the 2nd respondent seized 9 Kgs. of saffron from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has paid certain sums of money for redemption of the seized goods and the seized goods were released subsequently on 29-4-2010. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have filed an application before the 2nd respondent to close the prosecution initiated and return his passport. Copy of the application filed in this regard dated 12-7-2010 is produced at Annexure-E. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, has passed an order on 22-9-2010 closing the proceedings initiated reserving liberty to the 2nd respondent to submit the complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act in accordance with law. Despite the closure of the proceedings, as the passport of the petitioner was not returned to him, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to return his passport. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have no authority in law to withhold the passport of the petitioner. It is his case that as the penalty imposed has been paid and the goods seized have been already released in favour of the petitioner, there is no justification for retention of the passport with the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I., AIR 2008 SC 1414 to contend that there is no power vested in any other officer or Court except the passport officer as provided under the Passports Act, 1967 (for short the Act) to impound the passport. C.B.I., AIR 2008 SC 1414 to contend that there is no power vested in any other officer or Court except the passport officer as provided under the Passports Act, 1967 (for short the Act) to impound the passport. He invites the attention of the Court to the observations made by the Apex Court in the said decision wherein it is held that the retention of the passport by the CBI was not in conformity with the provisions of law as there was no order of the passport authorities under Section 10(3)(e) or by the Central Government or by any designated officer under Section 10A of the Act to impound the passport. 5. Petitioner's Counsel therefore, submits that the respondents herein are not entitled to keep the passport with them. It is his contention that personal liberty within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no persons can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that after obtaining necessary sanction, a criminal case is initiated for prosecuting the petitioner and a formal complaint is lodged before the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Dakshina Kannade, Mangalore, which is registered as P.C. No. 7/2011. It is further contended by him that passport of the petitioner being a vital document to establish the travel details of the petitioner and the commission of the offence, the same is relied upon by the complainant in the proceedings pending before the Special Judge and hence return of the said document will seriously prejudice their case. It is further contended that the passport has been already submitted to the Sessions Court (Special Judge) at Mangalore and the same is not in the custody of the respondents and it is in the custody of the Court and therefore the petitioner will have to take appropriate legal steps to secure the release of the passport. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of P.O. Thomas Vs. Union of India (UOI), (1989) 25 ECR 195 (Kerala) to contend that the documents, such as passports are useful for adjudication of the proceedings in the Customs Act and the seizure of the same is valid. 7. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of P.O. Thomas Vs. Union of India (UOI), (1989) 25 ECR 195 (Kerala) to contend that the documents, such as passports are useful for adjudication of the proceedings in the Customs Act and the seizure of the same is valid. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings and the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for both sides, it is clear that as held by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Nanda, referred to supra, the power to impound the passport vests with the competent officer under the Passports Act as per Section 10(3)(e) and no other authority has the power to impound the same. However, in the instant case, direction as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, as the passport is not currently in the custody of the respondent Authorities and it is in the custody of the Special Judge before whom the proceedings in P.C. No. 7/2011 are initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, Mangalore. In the Right of the same, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the respondents to return the passport to the petitioner. The only course open for the petitioner is to apply before the learned Special Judge, Mangalore for release of the passport. 8. It is open to the petitioner to urge the grounds as urged in this writ petition and place reliance on the judgment in Suresh Nanda's case to convince the Court below to release the document. If such an application is made, the Court below, I am sure will consider the same expeditiously, keeping in mind the urgency pleaded by the petitioner. With the above observations and reserving liberty as aforementioned, this writ petition is disposed of.