IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13054 of 2007 Date of Decision: May 23, 2008 Rajinder Singh Atwal …Petitioner Versus Union of India and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Navender P.K. Singh, Central Govt. Counsel, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing orders dated 29.9.2006 and 12.7.2007 (P-2 & P-4), passed by the respondents deciding not to issue passport to the petitioner for a period of five years w.e.f. 29.9.2006. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to issue passport to the petitioner without imposing the ban of five years. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.4.1998, Passport No. A-4965623 was issued to the petitioner which was valid upto 27.11.1999. The brother and sisters of the petitioners are settled in C.W.P. No. 13054 of 2007 the United States of America and having citizenship of that country. Even the father of the petitioner, who was a Green Card holder, expired in America. With a view to settle outside the country, the petitioner visited various countries including Holland, Denmark, Portugal and United Kingdom. He remained out of country till 11.2.2004. It is claimed that the petitioner lost his passport and came back to India on emergency certificate bearing No. 845676, dated 11.2.2004. 3. The petitioner got married and out of the wedlock one child was born on 24.1.2007. On 12.9.2005, the petitioner applied for issuance of fresh passport. In the application the petitioner disclosed all the places where he remained till 11.2.2004. On 29.9.2006, the Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar, rejected the application of the petitioner for issuance of a fresh passport (P-2). The order dated 29.9.2006, reads thus:- “ In this behalf, we have to inform you that at the time when you made application for passport in year 1998 and obtained that “I owe allegiance to the sovereignty and integrity of India and have not voluntarily acquired citizenship of travel of any other country. I have not lost, surrendered or been deprived of citizenship of India.” Now on consideration of application dated 12.9.2005 and affidavits dated 8.11.2005 submitted by you in support of the application for passport, it has been 2 C.W.P. No. 13054 of 2007 revealed that you had sought political asylum in U.K. and was refused. You had to travel back to India on Emergency certificate of dated 6.2.2004. That by doing so, you acted against the letter and spirit of the aforesaid declaration. Therefore, in terms of declaration dated 12.9.2005 contains in the present application, signed by you on dated 12.9.2005 and declaration signed at the foot of the aforesaid affidavit to the effect that Govt. is at liberty to take any legal action under the Passport Act, 1967 and in terms of provisions of this Passport Act, 1967, we have decided not to issue you passport for a period of five years from the date of the receipt of this letter by you. However, we may advise you that in case you do not feel satisfied with the aforesaid decision, you may approach the competent court.” From a bare perusal of order dated 29.9.2006 it is evident from the affidavits furnished by the petitioner alongwith the application dated 12.9.2005, that the petitioner had applied for political asylum at United Kingdom. 4. Aggrieved against the aforementioned order, the petitioner preferred an appeal (P-3), which has been dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2007 (P-4). In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents several preliminary objections have been raised. The 3 C.W.P. No. 13054 of 2007 primary stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, inasmuch as, he has not disclosed all the facts in the instant petition. It has been pointed out that on 6.5.1999, the petitioner traveled to Holland and later entered Denmark illegally on 10.5.1999. He then entered into Portugal (Lisbon) illegally. The petitioner did not stop here and further illegally entered into United Kingdom on 2.6.2000. In this regard, the respondents have also placed on record the affidavits dated 12.9.2005 and 8.11.2005 furnished by the petitioner in support of his application for issuance of fresh passport (R-1 and R-2 respectively). In para 9 of the affidavit dated 8.11.2005 (R-2), the petitioner has clearly mentioned that he had applied for political asylum abroad. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. As is clear from a perusal of documents placed on record, the petitioner had applied for grant of political asylum after reaching United Kingdom. Making of such a petition clearly depict that the petitioner was indulging in activities which were prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India and, he was, therefore, seeking refuge permanently in United Kingdom. Once his request was declined, he had no other option but to be sent back to India and for that purpose, he was issued an Emergency Certificate dated 11.2.2004. In his application dated 12.9.2005 for grant of passport facility after his return from United Kingdom, at the end a declaration is made by him 4 C.W.P. No. 13054 of 2007 that he owes allegiance to the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Once the petitioner had already expressed his displeasure/annoyance against the Indian administration, he cannot now claim that he owes allegiance to the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Under these circumstances, the respondents are justified in refusing passport facility to the petitioner. Moreover, the impugned orders dated 29.9.2006 and 12.7.2007 cannot be termed as orders refusing to issue a passport to the petitioners because in terms of the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, the respondents have decided not to issue passport to the petitioner only for a period of five years from the date of passing of order dated 29.9.2006, which would expire in September 2011. In view of above, no case is made out for the grant of any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 23, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5