FRED HOWARD HAERING Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28-4-1994 (Annexure P-3), passed by the second respondent herein, directing the petitioner to leave this country within seven days from that date, failing which he shall be prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner, as could be gathered from the writ petition, is as follows:

(3.) In the reply filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, they stated that though the petitioner entered India on 2-5-1993, he had not met the S.H.O. at Dalhousie and he also did not present any application for registration. While accepting that the petitioner met Shri K. S. Rana, Superintendent of Police, Chamba, at his residence on the afternoon on 15-4-1994 and that he was advised to meet him in his office the next day, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 denied that the petitioner met the S.H.O. Dalhousie on 14-4-1994 and also the filing of any application for registration at the police station at Dalhousie. According to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner did not present any application for extension of visa on 8-4-1994, nor did he present any application to F.R.R.O.. Delhi. This, according to them, was also confirmed by the communication received from the Government of India (Annexure R-1). While accepting the visit of the petitioner to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Chamba (F.R.O.), on 16-4-1994 and his staying in H.P.T.D.C. Hotel Iravati at Chamba, from 15-4-1994 to 18-4-1994, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 stated that thereafter, the petitioner stayed with his friends and made only verbal requests for extension of visa and no application was ever presented to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba. The further case of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was that as the petitioner did not register himself with the F.R.O. Chamba. or any other F.R.O. in India, his case was referred to the higher authorities and the petitioner was never detained or harassed by the police and he was always at liberty to move anywhere and he stayed at Chandigarh, Delhi and Shimla with his friends, as he was not forced to stay or not to stay, at any place or residence. According to respondents Nos.1 and 2, as per the directions of the authorities in the Ministry of Home Affairs, the petitioner visited the office of the Secretary Home, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, on 27-4-1994 and in the meanwhile the Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, was directed to take immediate action as directed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and accordingly, orders were passed on 28-4-1994, after examining the case of the petitioner and application of mind and the order impugned in the writ petition was passed after careful examination of the case and in the best interests of the security of the State. The impugned order was claimed by respondents 1 and 2 to be not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Maintaining that the impugned order is legal and had also been passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and stating that the visa of the petitioner had expired on 15-4-1994, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 stated that the petitioner had no right to stay in India after the expiry of the visa and the order impugned in the writ petition was not liable to be questioned by the petitioner on any ground.