JUDGMENT

13.04.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. The Petitioners in these batch of petitions seek a direction to the respondents to issue passports to the petitioners. The petitioners are all born in India and claim to be citizens of India in terms of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The petitioner – Tenzin Passang (W.P.(C) 254/2017), was born on 25.11.1986 and claims to be a citizen of India in terms of Section

3(1)(a) of the Act.

3. The petitioner –Rinzin Dolma (W.P.(C) 1455/2017), was born on 01.08.1973 and claims to be a citizen of India under Section

3(1)(a) of the Act.

4. The petitioner – Tenzin Yangzom (W.P.(C) 1865/2017), was born in India on 11.11.1990 and her mother Rinzin Dolma (petitioner in W.P.(C) 1455/2017) was born in India on 01.08.1973. As her mother was born in India and satisfies the requirement of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, the petitioner claims to be an Indian Citizen under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.

5. The petitioner – Tsering Dhonden Lhewa (W.P.(C) 1893/2017), was born on 10.09.1969 and claims to be a citizen of India under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.

6. The petitioner – Rinzin Dorjee (W.P.(C) 2171/2017), was born on 30.06.1978 and claims to be a citizen of India under Section

3(1)(a) of the Act.

7. Reliance is placed by the petitioners on the judgment of this Court dated 22.09.2016 in W.P.(C) No.3539/2016 titled Phuntsok Wangyal versus Ministry of External Affairs & Ors and other connected petitions. This Court by common Judgment dated 22.09.2016 in Phuntsok Wangyal (supra), W.P.(C) No.4275/2016 titled Lobsang Wangyal Versus Union of India and W.P.(C) No.7983/2016 titled Tenzin Dhonden Versus Union of India relying on the decision of the Namgyaal Dolkar versus Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs dated 22.12.2010 in W.P.(C) No.12179/2009, held that persons like the petitioner therein, who are covered under Section 3 of the Act are citizens of India and cannot be denied a passport on the ground that they are not Indian Citizens in terms of Section 6(2)(a) of the Passports Act, 1967. The Petitioner in Phunstok Wangyal (supra) and Lobsang Wangyal (supra) had claimed to be Citizens of India in terms of section 3(1) (a) of the Act as they were born in India on or after 26.01.1950 and before 01.07.1987. The Petitioner in Tenzin Dhonden (supra) was born on 16.08.1992 and had contended that his father was born in India on 01.01.1966 and claimed citizenship of India by virtue of Section

3(1)(b) of the Act.

8. The said Writ Petitions were allowed, by a common judgment dated 22.09.2016, holding the petitioners therein to be Indian Citizens and entitled all benefits and privileges, as are available to Indian Citizens. The respondents were directed to issue Indian Passports to the petitioners, who had been declared to be Indian Citizens.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, has accepted the decision of this Court dated 22.09.2016 in Phuntsok Wangyal (supra) and other connected matters and issued an Office Memorandum dated

17.03.2017 to all Passport Offices in India and all Indian Mission/Posts abroad. The Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2017 is produced in Court and the same is taken on record.

10. At this juncture, it would be expedient to reproduce the Office Memorandum in toto. The Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2017 reads as under:

“No. VI/441/1/16/2016 (Vol.III)

Government of India Ministry of External affairs CPV Division Patiala House Annexe, New Delhi The 17th March, 2017 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Grant of passport facilities to the Tibetan Refugees born in India between 26/01/1950 to 01/07/1987, who have been declared as the Indian Citizens by birth under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by the High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 22/09/2016 in the W.P. No. 4275/2016 of Lobsang Wangyal Vs. Union of India &

others – reg.

It may be mentioned that the High Court of Delhi vide