CWP No.19509 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19509 of 2007 Date of decision: March 27, 2009. Harbhajan Singh Brar ...Petitioner(s) v. Union of India & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate with Shri Dharminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Susheel Gautam, Advocate for Shri Gurpreet Singh, CGSC for UOI. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - The petitioner who describes himself President of Sai Mian Mir International Foundation (Regd.), seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents not to discriminate between the citizens in the matter of granting permission to cross Wagha-Attari Border by foot for going to Pakistan. He has also prayed to restrain the respondents from insisting to purchase tickets for the bus travellers 15 days in advance from the intended date of travel to Pakistan. The petitioner's case is that from Punjab (Amritsar), the Wagha- Attari border can be crossed for going into Pakistan by way of three modes, CWP No.19509 of 2007 -: 2 :- namely, rail, bus or on foot. While issuing visa to visit Pakistan, the High Commissioner of Pakistan at New Delhi does not prescribe any mode or place of entry. However, the Indian authorities though permit the visa holders to travel by rail by boarding the train either at Delhi or Attari, the Indian citizens travelling by bus are required to purchase the tickets 15 days in advance “for no logic reason”. According to the petitioner, in the absence of guidelines or rules for determining as to who is to be given permission to go on foot and to whom such permission is to be denied, the respondents to grant or refuse the permission at their sole discretion which is per se arbitrary. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, explaining that the “requirement of obtaining the tickets 15 days in advance in Amritsar – Lahore and Amritsar – Nankana Sahib services is to ensure safety and security of the passengers”. Para 6 of the counter affidavit further explains that special concession is given to senior citizens in the matter of granting permission to cross the border on foot, as while granting said permission, the infrastructure available at Attari border and the fact that the same road is being utilized for crossing-over of trucks, cargo and pedestrians, has to be kept in view. It is in this backdrop that a conscious decision has been taken by the Union of India to grant permission to cross the border on foot to people below 65 years of age on case-to-case basis. Para 11 of the counter affidavit further explains as follows:- “.... it is submitted that the applicants who apply well in time and whose applications are considered fro processing after consultations with Bureau of CWP No.19509 of 2007 -: 3 :- Immigration are being accorded permission to cross over on foot. This process is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as alleged by the petitioner. Further, there are valid provisions for grant of 'on-foot' permission laid down by the Government of India for crossing on foot at Attari. The conditions include that persons of 65 years age and above holding valid travel documents including visa may be allowed to cross the international border on foot. Besides, permission is given to the persons like diplomats of either country, eminent personalities like Judges and Ministers. The petitioner has, on earlier occasion, been travelling to Pakistan and has not been stopped by the Government of India on any occasion. ...” Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and having regard to the stand taken on behalf of the respondents, I am satisfied that no further directions are required to be issued by this Court. The safety and security of the persons visiting Pakistan, as well as of the Nation, are of paramount consideration and the regulatory measures are being taken by the respondents keeping in view such like factors only. The prevailing practice being followed by the respondents is based upon fact situation and calls for no interference by this Court. Dismissed. March 27, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge