skc 1 WP-4534-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4534 OF 2011 Shakeel Abdul Rehman Adhikari ..Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pankaj Kowli i/b. Dr. M. Shah Alam Khan for Petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Chavan & Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 20 July 2011. P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 1. 2. Writ petition is directed against the Order dated 14th March 2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of The Emigration Act 1983 against the order dated 12th July 2010 passed by the Section Officer came to be dismissed by observing thus : “I have studied the documents presented in this case as well as noted the arguments made by the learned counsels. Having considered the matter, I am of the opinion that the order passed in the matter of renewal skc 2 WP-4534-11 of the registration certificate since the registration certificate is lapsed / expired is upheld and the appeal, therefore, dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to apply afresh for a fresh registration as per the rules and regulations provided for the same and the competent authority would consider the same accordingly.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Authorities below failed to take into consideration that the Certificate of Registration came to be suspended by the Authorities vide Order dated 18th August 2006 on account of pendency of criminal case and that suspension continued till the criminal case is decided. It is submitted that the judgment in the criminal case was delivered by the competent criminal court on 23rd March 2010 whereby the petitioner came to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him by the prosecution. It is contended that since the Certificate of Registration was suspended till 23rd March 2010 and therefore the petitioner for the first time submitted application dated 21st June 2010 to the Protector General of Emigrants / Registering Authority for restoration of Registration Certificate which was suspended on account of pendency of criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the respondents vide communication / order dated 12th July 2010 rejected the application of the petitioner dated 21st June 2010 by observing thus : skc 3 WP-4534-11 “I am directed to refer to your letter dated 21.06.2010 on the above subject and to say that you have been informed vide letter of even number dated 24th May, 2010 that your Registration Certificate was valid upto 07-11-2008 and that you did not apply for renewal of the Registration Certificate as required under Section 13 of the Emigration Act, 1983. 2. Under the Emigration Act, 1983, there is no provision to revalidate a Registration Certificate validity of which has lapsed / expired. As such, your request to revalidate the Registration Certificate can not be acceded to.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is no doubt true that the application for renewal of Registration Certificate as required under Section 13 of the Emigration Act was not made by the petitioner at any point of time. However the application dated 26th June 2010 though made by the petitioner for restoration of the Registration Certificate could have been treated as an application for renewal of the Registration Certificate by the authorities since the Registration Certificate was suspended by the authorities during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. It is therefore contended that the action of the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 21st June 2010 on the grounds mentioned in the order is not sustainable in law. skc 4 WP-4534-11 4. It is further contended that though the Registration Certificate was valid only upto 7th November 2008 however since the same was suspended till the criminal proceedings were over it cannot be presumed that the validity period of Registration Certificate expired with effect from 7th November 2008 and therefore the impugned order as well as the other actions taken by the respondents are bad in law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has supported the impugned order as well as communication dated 12th July 2010. It is submitted that the petitioner never made any application for renewal of the Registration Certificate as per Section 13 of the Emigration Act. The application dated 21st June 2010 submitted by the petitioner is also not for renewal but for restoration and for want of provision in this regard the said request could not be considered favourably by the respondents since the period of Registration Certificate expired with effect from 7th November 2008. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the order impugned is sustainable in law. 6. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the provisions of Section 13 of the Emigration Act, 1983. In the instant case the following facts are not in dispute: That the petitioner was granted Registration Certificate by the skc 5 WP-4534-11 Authorities and the period of validity of the said Certificate was only upto 7th November 2008. It is not in dispute that for renewal of registration the procedure is stipulated in Section 13 of the Emigration Act, 1983 which contemplates a certificate may be renewed from time to time as per the provisions of the Emigration Act and Rules made thereunder. However for the said purpose it is necessary to apply for renewal of certificate to the competent authority. First proviso to Section 13 further contemplates that no certificate shall be renewed unless, the application for its renewal is made not less than three months prior to the date on which the certificate, would, but for such renewal, cease to be valid. Similarly, second proviso contemplates that the registering authority may entertain an application for the renewal of a certificate which has been made at any time during the period of three months prior to the date on which the certificate would, but for such renewal, cease to be valid if the applicant satisfies registering authority that he had sufficient cause for not making such application before the said period. 7. The plain reading of Section 13 clearly demonstrates that for renewal of certificate application is required to be made for renewal to the competent authority. As per the first proviso such application for renewal is required to be made prior to three months of the date of expiry of the skc 6 WP-4534-11 validity of the certificate. Second proviso permits the applicant to make an application during the said period of three months if there is sufficient cause to show that the said application could not be made prior to three months from the date of expiry of such registration certificate. In the instant case the petitioner did not submit any application whatsoever either prior to three months from the date the validity period of the certificate expired nor within the period of three months. The validity period of the Registration Certificate of the petitioner expired with effect from 7th November 2008. Since the petitioner has not made any application for renewal of the Registration Certificate, we see no merit in the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Another contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that application dated 21st June 2010 made by the petitioner ought to have been treated by the authorities as an application for renewal of the Registration Certificate though the said application was made by the petitioner for restoration of the Registration Certificate which expired with effect from 7th November 2008. The contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in our view, is misconceived. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision of the Emigration Act which entitles the petitioner to file an application after expiration of the validity skc 7 WP-4534-11 period of Registration Certificate for restoration of the said certificate and in absence thereof the application submitted by the petitioner dated 21st June 2010 itself according to us was misconceived. There is another aspect why this application dated 21st June 2010 cannot be treated to be an application for renewal. As observed herein above, the procedure for renewal is stipulated in Section 13 of the Emigration Act. Since the petitioner has not made any application for renewal and the application which is made by the petitioner dated 21st June 2010 was not for renewal nor provisions of section 13 contemplate such contingency where application of the petitioner dated 21st June 2010 after the expiry of the validity period of registration can be entertained. Hence the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner suffer from lack of merit. 9. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is devoid of substance. Same is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)