% 29.04.2010 5 to 11# Present; Ms. Nilofar Qureshi, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. for Mr. Atul Nanda, Adv. for the respondent No.l/UOI. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASG for the respondent No.2. {CommonOrders) +WF (Crl) No.267/2010 WF fCrn No.268/2010 WF (Crl) No.269/2010 WF rCrl) No.270/2010 WF rCrl) No.271/2010 WF (Crl) No.272/2010 WF (Crn No.273/2010 All these petitioners in these petitions are Pakistani Nationals,who were tried for different offences in the Courts in India. They were convicted and directed to undergo sentences for varying period. One common factor in all these petitionsis that these petitioners/convictpersonshave alreadyundergone the sentencesawarded to them by the Courts in Delhi and on completion of their sentences,they were releasedfromJail as well. However,after their releasefrom Jail, they were lodged in Videsh Sewa Sadan 'Foreigner Deportation Centre' Lampur, Narela, New Delhi. The sentences inflicted upon them were completed by these petitioners long ago, but they were made to languish in the Foreign Deportation Centre for last several years. Under these circumstances, these petitionerspreferred these petitionsfor habeas corpus with the prayer that they be released from the captivity in the Foreign Deportation Centre, Lampur and Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified M they be giventheirtravellingdocumentsso thatthey are able to go back to their country, i.e, Pakistan. Show cause notice in these petitions were issued for today and the respondentswere called upon to state the reasons as to why these petitioners were kept in captivityeven when they had completedtheir sentences. This is ^ because of the reason that even if the petitionersare foreign nationals,they cannot be deprivedof their liberty withoutdue process of law. Article 21 is availableto all personsand is notlimitedto the citizensof this country. Thatis the constitutionalvisionof justice,which is providedin Article21. Yes, at the same time, if aforeignnationalis anillegalimmigrant,he can be deportedback. Thatispreciselythesepetitionerswanted. Learned counsel for the UOI makes the statement at the bar that except Saukat Ali, who is the petitionerin WP(Crl.) No.267 of 2010, all other r petitionerswere repatriatedto Pakistanon 26.03.2010. There is some confusion whether Mohd. Saeed, petitioner in WP (Crl.) No.272 of 2010 has been repatriatedornot and learnedcounselfor the petitionerdisputesthis. However, learned counsel for the Union of India makes a categorical statement, on instruction, that even he was repatriated on 26.03.2010. Confusion is also because of the reason that learned counsel appearing for the NCT of Delhi states that perhaps he has not been repatriatedso far, as Delhi Goverrunenthas no information about him. We make it clear that in case he has not been repatriated so far, immediate steps shall be taken to repatriate Mohd. Saeed to Pakistan. Insofar as Shoukat Ali is concerned, learned counsel for the UOI states that consular access was provided on 15.03.2010. His repatriation is held up, as travel documents are still awaited. Statement is made that insofar as Indian Government is concerned, decision is taken to repatriate him to Pakistan and as soon as travel documents are received, he shall also be deported to Pakistan. In these circumstances, since relief stands granted to these petitioners administratively, no further orders are required to be passed. These writpetitionsare disposedof. 1'^ ^K. SIKRI,J. ^ AJIT BHARIHOKE, J. April 29,2010 pmc