Sukhwinder Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Jasbir Singh, J.—This order will dispose of three Civil Writ Petitions No. 11480, 1173 and 12527, all of the year 2007, as common question of law and facts is involved in all these cases. For facility of dictating order, facts are being mentioned from Civil Writ Petition No. 11480 of 2007.

By filing this writ petition, petitioner seeks that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash order dated August 11, 2006 (Annexure P-2), denying issuance of passport to him for a period of five years. Further prayer is to quash order dismissing his appeal on July 4, 2007 (Annexure P4).

It is an admitted fact that earlier also, the petitioner was issued a passport, on which he travelled to Kenya, stayed there for six months and then went to United States of America on visitor''s visa , where he moved an application to get political asylum. He lost his passport and fresh passport bearing No. K-3 12910 was issued to him by Indian Embassy in New York, on September 18, 1992. His application to get political asylum was rejected and he was deported to India on Emegency slip on July 29, 2004. When he applied to get a fresh passport, his application was declined on August 11, 2006, on the ground that his act of applying for political asylum in USA was prejudicial to the interest of the country. He went in appeal and the same was dismissed. Hence this writ petition.

Upon notice, reply was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, wherein the reasons, which were earlier given, for rejecting application of the petitioner were reiterated.

After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that the point in dispute is squarely covered against the petitioner by ratio of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sandeep Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , in which controversy was exactly the same. Petitioner in that case, had travelled to Germany on an Indian Passport and had sought political asylum. His request was declined. He was deported to India. Thereafter, when he applied to get a fresh passport, in view of above said fact, his application was declined. He came to this Court and while deciding his writ petition, it was observed as under:

We are further of the view that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Court.. He had submitted an affidavit of the Passport Officer, Passport Office, Jalandhar, which shows that the petitioner travelled to Morocco on tourist visa and then entered Germany illegally and applied for political asylum. This fact has been suppressed from this Court which itself entitled the petitioner to any hearing on merit as has been held by this Court in the case of Chiranji Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana 1978 PLR 582.

Once it is clear that the petitioner had sought political asylum, while during his stay in Germany, he acted against the declaration, which was submitted by him at the time of his applying for the passport earlier that he owned allegiance to the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Therefore, the respondents were justified in placing his name on Prior Approval Category and denying him the passport facility for a period of five years from the date of deportation, i.e., up to 22-5-2011.

Again a similar controversy came up for consideration before this Court in Harjit Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , in this case also the petitioner was holder of an Indian Passport. He travelled to Germany, sought political asylum. His request was rejected. Thereafter, he was deported to India. His application to get fresh passport was rejected by taking note of the above said fact. He came to this Court by filing a writ petition. While deciding that case, it was observed as follows:

In the present case the petitioner sought political asylum in Germany. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner owes allegiance to India and to its sovereignty, unity and integrity. It is not denied by the petitioner that he made efforts to get political asylum in Germany. It is for this reason, the respondents have denied passport to him.

12.Since political asylum is normally sought by persons by representing to another country that they fear persecution and oppression in their own country, the apprehension of the respondents that the petitioner does not owe allegiance to the sovereignty and integrity of India, is not entirely unjustified.

13.We, thus, find nothing wrong with the decision of the respondents in denying the passport to the petitioner for five years and placing him on Prior Approval Category.

In this case also, petitioner was holder of an Indian Passport. He went to a foreign country and sought political asylum there. His request was rejected. He was deported to India on expenses incurred by the Government of India. By making a request for political asylum in a foreign country, the petitioner has shown his antipathy/ opposition to the Government of India.

In view of this, this Court feels that issuance of passport for a period of five years was rightly declined to the petitioner. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in C.W.Ps. No. 11480 and 12527, both of the year 2007

Perusal of order impugned in CWP No. 1173 of 2007 indicates that facility of passport has been denied to the petitioner permanently. This act appears to be unjustified. In that writ petition also, the petitioner had gone to a foreign country on an Indian passport, sought political asylum there and on rejection, he was deported to India. When he moved an application to get fresh passport, it was rejected without specifying any time , on completion of which he can get a fresh passport.

In CWP No. 12527 of 2007 and CWP No. 11480 of 2007 (main writ petition) under similar circumstances, limitation of five years to get a new passport has been imposed.

In view of above, this Court feels that in this case, the embargo to get new passport shall be for five years only, i.e. from the date when order declining passport was passed by the competent authority on May 9, 2006 (Annexure P-6). In view of above, C.W.P. No. 1173 of 2007 is partly allowed.

It is made clear that even before expiry of five years time, the petitioner in all these three cases may move an application to get fresh passport. Their applications be processed , in the meantime, and on completion of five years, passport be granted to them immediately.

Subject to observations made above, these writ petition stand disposed of.