SUNDARI GOPAL Vs. CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the passport bearing No. A. 5311126 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chennai, which is a genuine one and to allow the first petitioner to travel abroad using the same and to direct the first respondent to give due compensation to the second petitioner for the irreparable loss and hardship caused to him due to his termination from service,

(2.) THE first petitioner submits that she is employed as Nursing Care Assistant in a Nursing Home in the U, K. and her husband, the second petitioner, is also employed in the U. K. as a Security Guard. They came to India on a three week holiday and arrived at Chennai on 6-3-2004 via Colombo by Air Lanka. Their permanent address got on lease is at No. 8, V. O. C. Street, Mogappair (West), Chennai-37. Although they were working out of India, their landlord Mr. Appikutti received all their communications and looked after their affairs pertaining to the house.

(3.) AFTER their three week stay in India, they decided to return back to their duties at England. They were about to board the 9. 00 p. m. Air Lanka flight on 22-3-2004. At the time of checking their passports, the Immigration Authorities required verification of the passport of the first petitioner. They are alleged to have behaved very rudely towards her husband, and the first petitioner was told that the passport furnished by her was not genuine. They further alleged that the passport had been tampered with, as the thread holding the papers together in the passport was slightly loose. According to the petitioners, it was the first respondent who was trying to peel the thread and the paper with his nails. They also threatened the first petitioner with imprisonment for five years. The first respondent refused to clear her immigration check-up and consequently refused to allow her to embark. Both of them tried to convince the first respondent that the first petitioner was the owner of the passport but without any avail. The second petitioner was very much disappointed, as he could not rejoin duty, but being the first petitioner's husband, he could not leave her back in India. Therefore, they re-booked their flight tickets and returned home.