JEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the citizens of Afghanistan. On a valid visa issued by the Government of India, they came to India in the year 1992. Despite the expiry of the period to which visa was issued, they continued to remain in India and, accordingly, on 27th August, 1998 they were apprehended from the places where they were working and were served with the order of deportation. By order dated 2nd September, 1998 served separately on petitioners 2 and 3, they were asked to leave India latest by 19th September, 1998 and were further asked not to visit India again. Even before the date mentioned in the notice, namely, 19th September, 1998, the petitioners were deported to Afganisatan on 12th September, 1998. Besides initiating other proceedings, petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No.794/1998, in this Court challenging the order of deportation. Still another writ petition being Crl. Writ Petition No.845/1999 was filed by the petitioners seeking permission to stay in India. Both these petitions were dismissed by this Court.

(2.) BY order dated 7th October, 1998, while dismissing the Crl.Writ Petition No.845/1998, the Court observed that allowing the prayers made in the writ petition would have the effect of permitting the foreigners (petitioners) to stay in India without any valid authorisation in their favour, in which they under the law have no right. No ground was, therefore, found by the Court to issue any directions in favour of the petitioners. After the dismissal of the aforesaid two writ petitions, in my opinion, there was no cause for the petitioners to file the present petition to challenge the order dated 2nd September, 1998 not only deporting them from India but also banning their entry in India in future also. Petitioners have already taken recourse to law by filing writ petitions in this Court and those writ petitions have already been dismissed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that that part of the order whereby the entry of the petitioner in India was banned was not challenged in the earlier writ petition. I am no impressed with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The order dated September 2, 1998 having already been challenged in the earlier writ petitions cannot be challenged again. Even assuming the petitioners had not challenged a part of the order in the earlier writ petition, the present petition will still be barred by principles of res-judicata in as much as a plea which might and ought to have been taken in the earlier litigation cannot be permitted to be taken in the subsequent petition. This petition, in my view, is barred by principles of res-judicata and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.