TAHIR HUSAIN ANSARI Vs. U P RAJYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the two petitioners who claim themselves to be husband and wife respectively, is substantially to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow petitioner No. 1, who is a Pakistani National, to stay in India till an indefinite period. A further prayer has been made to command respondent No. 3, the Union of India through Home Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi to issue a Long Term Visa (L.T.V.).

(2.) It appears that the claim of the petitioners is to this effect--petitioner No. 1 was born in India in 1947 but migrated to Pakistan, became a Pakistani citizen and has been residing in pakistan along with his uncle Sanadat Hussain Ansari. He was granted passport on 19.2.96 by Pakistan ; He was issued Visa on 2.6.97 for 3 months to visit India. He has married petitioner No. 2, an Indian citizen, on 26-1.1992. He has a step-daughter Kumari Meena, a daughter Mukkadtssa and a son Suhail. He has fixed marriage of Meena in Altgarh. He does not want to return to Pakistan or else his wife, children and home all will be spoiled. He is a patient of Blood Pressure and remains ill; He filled Form B for grant of L.T.V. as per the Rule or one year for the first time for the reason that he has married petitioner No. 2 on 26.1.1992. The petitioners have not brought on the record the order by which the prayer made by petitioner No. 1 in Form B has been rejected by the Government of India--respondent No. 3 so that we could know the precise reasons for rejection of his prayer. The Submissions :

(3.) Mr. Daya Shanker Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, with reference to the statements made in paragraph 9 of this writ petition and copy of the Visa Form B (Annexure-4) contended that since Visa of petitioner No. 1 will expire on 18.2.2001, the authorities cannot deport petitioner No. 1 to Pakistan unless the said Visa is cancelled. He also placed strong reliance on the Passport of the petitioner No.l. He lastly contended that the attitude of the authorities is also discriminatory, who have failed to consider the recommendations of the U. P. Police. By non-grant of Visa, the fundamental right of the petitioner No. 2 guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been breached.