Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Meh Jabeen vs Union Of India And Others on 9 May, 2025
Sr. No. 82
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: WP(C) No.1137/2025
Meh Jabeen ..... Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Koshal Parihar, Advocate with
Mr. Mashkoor A. Bhat, Advocate
Vs
Union of India and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI for R-1.
Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Assisting Counsel to
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
09.05.2025
1. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms. Priyanka
Bhatt, Assisting Counsel appearing vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG
accepts notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 4.
2. The respondents are directed to file their reply to the main petition
and the objections to the interim application by the next date of hearing.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of his prayer
for grant of interim relief.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of his arguments
inter-alia contended that petitioner is a Domicile/Permanent Resident of Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir residing at village Dodaj Tehsil Darhal District
Rajouri and a citizen of India, as being evident from the copies of the
Permanent Residence and domicile certificates annexed with the petition. That
she has already been granted the Permanent Residence and Domicile certificates
by the concerned authority which are placed on record of the petition. That the
grand-father of the petitioner was an estate holder owning and possessing
immovable property at Darhal, District Rajouri, which after his death came to be
inherited by her father namely, Abdul Qayoom, who was the only son of her
grand-father namely, Wazir Mohammad. That the father of the petitioner Abdul
Qayoom was by birth a Permanent Resident of Jammu and Kashmir and a citizen
of India. That unfortunately her father Abdul Qayoom during turmoil crossed the
Line of Control and stayed for sometime in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir,
returning back approximately in the year 1988. That her father had filed a writ
petition before this Court when she was minor and she could not lay her hands on
the documents pertaining to the same. That the petitioner inherited the property of
her father and the authorities on the basis of the revenue record have issued the
Permanent Residence/Domicile certificates in her favour, copies of which are
placed on record of the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner
has a strong prima facie case made out in her favour and the balance of
convenience also tilts towards her. That she is likely to suffer an irreparable loss
in case the interim relief as prayed for, is not granted in her favour.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments, in
respect of the interim application, placed reliance on a full bench judgment of
this Court titled 'S. Mohsin Shah Vs. Union Govt. of India and others' bearing
Writ Petition No.31 of 1971, decided on 31.10.1973.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
contended that as herself admitted by the petitioner in the petition, her father
had crossed the LOC and stayed in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK),
whereafter she came back in the year 1988. The learned counsel contended that
petitioner entered India in the year 1990, who was under an obligation to exit
India immediately after the expiry of her visa which she failed and continued
to stay in India in contravention of the law governing the subject. That
continuing stay of the petitioner in India is without any justification which
warranted legal action against her together with her deportation from India.
The learned counsel further contended that the impugned notice dated
26.04.2025 has been issued strictly in compliance to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs foreigners-1 Division, order issued under
No.25022/28/2025-F 1 dated 25.04.2025 and also in exercise of the powers
vested with the respondent No.4 under Section 7(2)(C) of the Immigration and
Foreigners Act, 2025.
8. Perused the application supported with an affidavit. Also perused the
main petition and the copies of the documents enclosed with the same as
annexures thereto.
9. List on 04.06.2025.
10. In the meantime, subject to any vacation/modification upon the
consideration of objections/arguments and till next date of hearing before the
Bench, respondents are expected to look into the case of the petitioner in the
light of the averments of the petition and may not require the petitioner to
leave India without addressing her claim under law.
(MOHD. YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
09.05.2025
Shammi
