Delhi High Court
Ranbir Kumar vs Union Of India & Others on 3 December, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3746/2008
Date of decision: 3rd December, 2009
RANBIR KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through in person.
versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. V. Dalmia, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
%
1. The petitioner is right in his contention that language used in emergency
certificate is incorrect and the petitioner had never applied for emergency certificate
to be deported to India from United Kingdom, but this alone does not entitle the
petitioner to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, which read as under:-
"(1) To quash the decision of the
respondent no.2 to issue an Emergency Certificate
on 28th January, 2008 authorizing the petitioner to
enter India;
(2) To mandate the respondent no.1 to
initiate proceedings against the UK Immigration
Services and the respondent no.2 under the
Passport Act 1967;
(3) To mandate the respondent no.1 to restore
the petitioner's position, which was in at the time
W.P.(C) No.3746/2008 Page 1
when the Emergency Certificate issued on 28th
January 2008;
(4) To mandate the respondent no.2 to return
the petitioner's cancelled passport to the
petitioner.
(5) To quash the decisions dated 20th March
2008 and 1st May 2008 of the respondent no.3;
(6) To quash the decision dated 5th May
2008 of the respondent no.3;
(7) To mandate the respondent no.3 provide
information which were concealed by letter of 26th
March 2008;
(8) To mandate the respondent no.3 to pay
damages to the petitioner under the Right to
Information Act,2005 from 14th March 2005."
2. The petitioner was issued passport No. M093445 on 28th August, 1992, which
was valid up to 27th August, 2002. The petitioner had gone to Germany on 3rd
September, 2001 and was issued a new passport by the Indian Embassy in Frankfurt
bearing No. B 3880477. The new passport was valid up to 2nd June, 2012. The
petitioner subsequently travelled to United Kingdom and started residing there. He
made applications to UK Immigration Services for grant of requisite
permission/residency permit. It is the case of the petitioner that these applications
were pending when he was deported to India under Emergency Certificate.
3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that that UK
Immigration Services had informed them that the petitioner was an illegal immigrant
and thereafter on the request of the UK Immigration Services and in terms of Indo-UK
Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner was issued emergency certificate and
W.P.(C) No.3746/2008 Page 2
deported to India. It is, therefore, the stand of the respondents that they had acted
on the basis of the request of the UK Immigration Services and in order to protect an
Indian citizen. UK Immigration Services had stated that the petitioner was an illegal
migrant and had no right to stay in the said country.
4. The petitioner in his writ petition has himself stated that he had filed several
proceedings against the UK Immigration Services in view of their refusal to grant
requisite permission/residency certificate. Reference in this regard can be made to
paragraph 2(I) of the writ petition at internal page Nos.7 & 8. In fact in the said
paragraph allegations have been made that the UK Immigration Services had
fraudulently obtained the Emergency Certificate. The petitioner had initiated
proceedings in various forums/court and had also obtained leave to appeal in the
House of Lords relating to his migration status. The petitioner, who appears in person,
however, states that he is not aware of the status and result of the said proceedings
as he is not following them.
5. In view of the aforesaid, I do not think reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition
can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
DECEMBER 03, 2009
NA
W.P.(C) No.3746/2008 Page 3
