JATIN KHOSLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner- Jatin Khosla who is an old Indian Passport holder bearing No. E0178364 issued on 05.11.2001, issued a Student Visa for the Republic of Cyprus on 11.03.2004 and he travelled to Cyprus on 14.03.2004 on a valid visa and passport i.e Annexure P-2. However, while in Cyprus, the petitioner was misguided by an agent and advised to file for a political asylum in Cyprus. The petitioner subsequently applied for political asylum, but was refused and thereafter, he had to apply for an Emergency Certificate in order to travel back to India, which was given to him vide Emergency Certificate No. X465866 dated 19.12.2013 (P-3). The petitioner then returned to India on 31.12.2013. Thereafter, he married to one Satwinder Kaur on 22.01.2014, who is a permanent resident of Abbotsford, Canada. The copy of marriage certificate dated 28.07.2014 is Annexure P-4. Since the petitioner's old passport expired, he applied for re-issuance of passport, vide fee receipt dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure P-5). The Ministry of External Affairs via its Passport Officer, Jalandhar refused to grant a passport to the petitioner vide letter dated 198.08.2014 (Annexure P-6). An appeal filed against the above said order but vide letter dated 07.04.2016, the petitioner was informed that his case was deferred till the final outcome of LPA No. 13/2016 at Delhi High Court. Hence the present writ petition

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has referred to LPA No. 13-2016 titled as Union of India and anr v. Satnam Singh, decided on 12.01.2018 dismissing the appeals filed by Union of India wherein the question was that whether the activities of passport applicant, while visiting a foreign country on Indian Passport and then applying in that country for asylum, can be construed as "prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India" resulting in justifiable refusal to denial of passport to such individual on that ground under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Passport Act, 1997. In Para No. 24 and 25, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court observed as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further informed the Court that in the above LPA decided by Delhi High Court, the petitioner was also in one of those 85 candidates, whose case was rejected.