Disposed

Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/1041/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi directed the Ministry of External Affairs to decide the petitioner's passport re-issue application within four weeks after providing an opportunity of hearing. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's application within four weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Phuntsok Wangyal Vs Ministry of External… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1041/2016

¶4

PHUNTSOK WANGYAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal with Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS & ANR..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia with Mr. Prashant Ghai and Ms. Srishti Banerjee, Advs. for R-1 and 2

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 08.02.2016

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to re-issue the petitioner‟s passport.

¶11

Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to dispose of his application dated 23^rd March, 2015.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he was born in Dehradun to his Tibetan Refugee parents on 17^th September, 1977 and being an Indian citizen, he was given an Indian Passport in accordance with Section 3(1)(a) of The Citizenship Act, 1955.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that on 01^st April, 2015, the petitioner made an application for re-issue of his passport on account of exhaustion of the pages in the passport.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 22^nd April, 2015, respondent No.2 asked him to furnish his identity certificate and the same was submitted by him, but respondent No.2 has not taken any decision on the petitioner's application till date. He also states that the identity certificate has subsequently been handed back to the petitioner after its cancellation.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's application within four weeks whose acknowledgment has been placed at page 25 of the paper book after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶16

This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and the right and contentions of all parties are left open.

¶17

MANMOHAN, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 08, 2016 NG

Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nectar Lilfesciences Limited Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Savita Sharma and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Valency International Trading Pte. Ltd. Vs Mmtc Ltd. & Anr.

Yogesh Mahajan Vs Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anirudh Rai Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sangeeta Rai Vs the Sdmc and Anr.

The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.

Nectar Lilfesciences Limited Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Valency International Trading Pte. Ltd. Vs Mmtc Ltd. & Anr.

Sajjan Aadiwasi Shikshan Evam Vikas Samiti Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Jamilur Rahman Ansari Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Sk Trading Vs Union of India & Ors.