SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Gau) 108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Aftab H. Saikia, J.
Smt. Areni Lotha - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 294(K) of 2005
Decided On: 31.01.2006

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P. Pius Lotha, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: K. Meruno, Asstt. Solicitor General and L.S. Jamir, Addl. Sr. Govt. Adv.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of affording a fair opportunity of being heard before taking serious steps such as deportation from the country, in line with the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

PAP Cancellation - Right to Life and Liberty - [Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 3(2)(c), Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, Section 3(2)] - The court discussed the cancellation of Protected Area Permit (PAP) of a foreign national, emphasizing the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court highlighted the requirement of affording a fair opportunity of being heard before taking such serious steps as deportation from the country. The judgment emphasized that any action of refusal/denial of the right guaranteed under Article 21 shall always be subject to following the procedure established by law, including affording a fair opportunity of being heard. The court quashed the impugned order and granted liberty to enquire into the matter, with a directive to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking any action against the foreign national.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's husband, a foreign national, had his Protected Area Permit (PAP) cancelled without a fair opportunity of being heard, based on serious intelligence inputs about his activities, including alleged links with Kashmiri militants and involvement in anti-national activities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order was passed without affording a fair opportunity of being heard to the petitioner's husband, violating the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court quashed the impugned order and granted liberty to enquire into the matter, with a directive to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking any action against the foreign national.

Issues: The issues revolved around the cancellation of the Protected Area Permit (PAP) of the petitioner's husband without affording a fair opportunity of being heard, based on serious intelligence inputs about his activities, and the violation of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of affording a fair opportunity of being heard before taking serious steps such as deportation from the country, in line with the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment highlighted that any action of refusal/denial of such right shall always be subject to following the procedure established by law, including affording a fair opportunity of being heard.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. Liberty was granted to enquire into the matter, with a directive to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking any action against the foreign national.

ORDER

A.H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Pius Lotha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Meruno, learned Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) for the Union of India as well as Mr. L. S. Jamir, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.

2. On 8-11-05 when this writ petition was moved challenging the notice/order dated 23-6-05 issued by the respondent No, 3. Superintendent of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland by which the husband of the petitioner Mr. Khaled Hassan Matter Abdul Razak, was informed that Protected Area Permit (PAP), issued to him, was cancelled with a direction to report to the said officer to carry out the instruction of the Govt. to deport him ordering therein itself that if he was not in Dimapur presently, he was directed not to enter Dimapur, notice of motion was issued to the respondents making the same returnable within 2 (two) weeks and the learned Counsel appearing for all the official respondents accepted those notices.

3. On the prayer for consideration of passing an interim order staying the impugned notice dated 23-6-05 so made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court on 24-11-05, after hearing the learned Counsel for all the parties, directed the learned CGSC to obtain instruction in connection with the said prayer fixing the matter on 7-12-05 and till the returnable date, the operation of both the impugned notice dated 23-6-05 issued by the respondent No. 3 as well as the letter dated 17-8-05 issued by the Joint Secretary (F), Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India (Annexure-X and IX respectively to the writ petition) was stayed.

4. When the matter was taken up on the returnable date i.e. 7-12-05, no instruction was placed before this Court as directed earlier and accordingly, Mr. K. Meruno, learned ASG prayed for further 2 (two) weeks' time in order to obtain necessary instruction which was granted by this Court fixing 25-1-06 and till then, the interim order passed earlier was allowed to continue.

5. However, on 25-1-06, the matter was not listed and ultimately, it is taken up today for consideration of admission of the case as well as the continuation of the interim order granted earlier.

6. Taking into account the controversy raised in this writ petition and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court proposes to dispose of this matter today itself at the order stage.

7. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner herein are that her husband Shri Khaled Hassan Mattar Abdul Razak is, being a Jordanian National, holding Passport No. 616309 with a permission to reside at Dimapur and Kohima in the State of Nagaland. He married the petitioner on 15-1-88 at Dimapur and since then, both of them are leading a happy married life as husband and wife and this wedlock has gifted them 2 (two) children i.e. 2 sons. Initially, he was granted PAP for one year w.e.f. 8-6-89 which was extended from time to time and eventually, the last extension was granted on 17-5-05 for a period of 5 years up to 16-4-2010 and the same is evident from Annexure-VI annexed to the writ petition. It is pleaded in this writ petition that during the entire period of his stay, the activities of the petitioner's husband has been monitored by the intelligent agencies and the permission has granted to stay on the satisfaction of those authorities as her husband is neither involved in any anti-national activities nor has he any criminal record.

8. Suddenly, while the petitioner and her husband along with their children were living a happy life, to their great astonishment and shock, the impugned notice dated 23-6-05 (Annexure-X to the writ petition) was served upon her as her husband, at the relevant time, was out of Nagaland.

9. The said notice reads as under :-

GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND

OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

DIMAPUR, NAGALAND

No. DEF/DMR/CB-84/2005/2089, Dtd. Dimapur, the 23rd June, 2005

To

Mr. Khaled Hassan Mattar Abdul Razak.

Sub : NOTICE

It has been intimated by Special Secretary (Home), Nag



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top