Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 487 (PNJ)

Sandeep Kumar v. Union Of India

2008-02-22

M.M.KUMAR, T.P.S.MANN

body2008
Judgment T.P.S.MANN, J. 1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing of the order dated 18-4-2007 passed by Passport Officer, Jalandhar declining the request of the petitioner for the issuance of a passport for a period of five years on the ground that he had sought political asylum in Germany, which was refused. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was earlier issued a passport, which was valid upto 6-11-2010 on which he travelled to Germany in the year 2002. During his stay in the said country, he lost his passport and came back to India on Emergency Certificate dated 23-5-2006. After coming to India, he again applied for another passport on 28-7-2006 and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- with the Passport Office, Jalandhar. His application for the issuance of passport was complete in all respects. In spite of the same, he was not issued the passport and instead vide impugned order dated 18-4-2007 (P. 2), he has been denied the facility of passport on the ground that he had sought political asylum in Germany. 3. Reply was filed by respondent No. 2, wherein it was stated that the petitioner travelled to Morocco on tourist visa from where he entered Germany illegally. He then applied to the authorities in Germany for political asylum. On 23-5-2006, he reported the loss of passport and travelled back to India on Emergency Certificate issued on the said date by Consulate General of India, Frankfurt. Though on 28-7-2006, he again applied for the passport facility yet on 22-9-2006, he furnished an affidavit stating therein that while in Germany he had sought political asylum. Under these circumstances, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Ministry of External Affairs, which vide letter dated 22-3-2007 directed to place the name of the petitioner on Prior Approval Category for five years from the date of deportation and for the said reason, the passport has not been issued to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has also placed on record the copy of the affidavit (R2/1) submitted by the petitioner regarding his applying for political asylum and also the letter dated 22-3-2007 (R2/2) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 4. Respondent No. 2 has also placed on record the copy of the affidavit (R2/1) submitted by the petitioner regarding his applying for political asylum and also the letter dated 22-3-2007 (R2/2) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 22-9-2006 when he met the Passport Officer, he was compelled to file an affidavit that he had applied for political asylum, although he had never applied for the same. Immediately thereafter, he wrote a letter dated 26-9-2006 (P.1) to the Ministry of External Affairs for having been forced by the Passport Officer to submit the affidavit regarding having applied for political asylum. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the photocopy of the affidavit (R2/1) dated 22-9-2006, which the petitioner had submitted to the Passport Officen Jalandhar. A perusal of the same would show that he declared therein that he travelled to Morocco on tourist visa and then entered-Germany illegally. Further that he applied for political asylum also. This affidavit was thereafter attested by Notary, Jalandhar (Punjab) after an advocate identified the petitioner of having signed the same in his presence. Once such an affidavit is on the record, the petitioner cannot be heard saying that he had been forced by the Passport Officer to submit the same with an assurance that he would be issued a passport afresh. Photocopy of the Emergency Certificate No. 922065 dated 23-5-2006 is also available in the records produced by the respondents. It is clearly stated therein that the petitioner had been deported from Germany. If it was a simple case of the petitioner losing his passport during his stay in Germany and thereafter, applying for Emergency Certificate to travel back to India, his case could not have been termed as a deportation case. 6. 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 disentitled 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. 7. This fact has been suppressed from this Court which itself disentitled 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. 7. 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 owed 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. 8. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.