$-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(cRL) 87 t20rr MOHD MOHAN Through versus STATE OF DELHI & ORS Through ..... Petitioner Mr. M.A. Rahman, Adv. ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for State with Mr. Nikhil A Menon, Adv. oh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER L8.L0.2011 By this petition the Petitioner seeks directions to provide security the life, personal liberfy and compensation in view of the physical monetary harassment caused to the Petitioner by the Respondents. The case of the Petitioner is that he was born in the year I974in India. In the year 1995 he has cast a vote as an Indian citizen. He was married in India and his children were born in India. His father on death was buried in the Nizammudin graveyard. All the documents annexed show that the Petitioner is an Indian national. Since the Petitioner is an Indian national, his right to life, liberty and property cannot be disturbed and thus, he is of & w.P.(cRL) 87/2011 pnge I of 4 Signing Date:05.09.2024 17:03:50 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified entitled to protection. On a notice being issued status report has been filed. As per the status report on 3'd February, 2O!0 the Task Force of the South District, Delhi Police produced the Petitioner Mohd. Mohan before the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) being the Civil Authority for the Union Tenitbry of Delhi. The local Police had identified the Petitioner as an illegal migrant of Bangladesh and requested the FRRO to deport him to Bangladesh. Accordingly, the FRRO restricted the movements of the Petitioner at Sewa Sadan, ShahjadaBagh, Sarai Rohilla. On this one complaint was filed by the Dadan Ali, the brother of the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner was an Indian national and previously resident of Baba Shathal, Indira Camp, Village Tengra, District Shialda, Kolkata, West Bengal. The complaint was got enquired into and as per the enquiry conducted it was revealed that the Petitioner was a Bangladeshi national. Thus, a speaking order of deportation was passed against the Petitioner vide order dated 22"d March,2}I} and sufficient opportunity was given to the Petitioner to challenge the same. On 31" March,2010 when the Petitioner was being deported, the wife of the Petitioner filed an application before the Learned ACMM seeking release of the Petitioner. w.P.(cRL) 87/2011 page 2 of 4 ry Learned On a report being sought, the reply was filed before the ACMM and in the meantime the Petitioner was not deported. On 1" April, 2010 the Learned ACMM after hearing the parties passed the following orders 'No further orders are required from the present Court. The Applicant is at liberly to approach the appropriate Court/ forum for redressal of their grievances". Thus the Petitioner was deported on22nd April, 2010 along with Bangladeshi nationals. It appears that the Petitioner came back and on 17th September, 2Ol0 he was again identified as living in the country illegally and produced before the FRRO for deportation. Again his movements were restricted and subsequently order for deportation was passed vide order dated 22"d September, 2010. It is, thus, clear that the Petitioner even after second deportation is back to this country. In the present petition the Petitioner had filed the birth certificate. On the said certificate, verification has been received. As per the verification report, it is stated that on scrutiny of the attested copy of the documents submitted by the Petitioner it has come to notice that the signature of the Applicant is in Devnagri, however the signature on the application and the affidavit are in block letters of English. Thus, the possibility of some other person having impersonated for having the documentation done and the w.P.(cRL) 87/2011 page 3 of 4 certificate issued from the office could not be ruled out as per the Tehsildar, Defence Colony. -Whether a person is an Indian national or not is within the domain of the Central Government to adjudicate. In case the Petitioner has any documents for the same, he is always at liberty to agitate the issue before the competent authority. In view of the fact that as per the competent authority the Petitioner is a Bangladeshi national, this Court cannot direct the Respondents not take due process of law. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority for adjudication of his rights. The petition is dismissed. MUKTA GUPTA,J ocToBER L8,20LL oga' w.P.(cRL) 87/2011 page 4 of 4