Allowed

Tenzin Rabga v. Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/2572/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Tibetan origin student in the USA, filed a writ petition seeking renewal of his expiring identity certificate issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. The court accepted the averments as uncontested directions and directed the respondents to process the application within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed. Respondents directed to process the petitioner's application for renewal of identity certificate within 10 days.

Tenzin Rabga Vs Ministry of External Affairs & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment decided on: 17.04.2018

¶4

W.P.(C) 2572/2018 TENZIN RABGA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Giriraj Subramanium and Mr.Simarpal Singh, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj and Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶9

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Notice in this petition was issued on 19.03.2018 with the following directions:

¶11

“1. The petitioner’s limited grievance is that his identity certificate is not being renewed. According to the petitioner, the identity certificate which has been issued to him, expires on 4.5.2018.

¶12

2. Issue notice.

¶13

2.1 Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate accepts notice for respondents. Mr. Bhardwaj says that he will revert with instructions.

¶14

2.2. In case the instructions are given to resist the petition, the respondents will file a counter affidavit before the next date of hearing.

¶15

3. Renotify the matter on 17.4.2018”.

¶16

Mr. Bhardwaj, who appears for the respondents, submits that despite several communications sent to the concerned officer, no instructions have

¶17

W.P.(C) 2572/2018 1 of 3

¶18

been received. Resultantly, Mr. Bhardwaj submits that neither does he have instructions in the matter nor has he been able to file a counter affidavit as no comments were sent for preparing the same.

¶19

The reason that this matter was fixed today at an early date was that the petitioner required clarity as to whether or not the identity certificate issued to him would be renewed. It may be noted the petitioner is a person of Tibetan origin, who, presently, is pursuing a course in PHD, in Physics, at the Michigan State University, USA.

¶20

3.1 The petitioner avers that he was born in Shillong, in India, and his date of birth is 28.03.1991.

¶21

3.2 It is also the petitioner’s case that he was issued by respondent No.1 an identity certificate bearing No.070097, dated 05.05.2008.

¶22

3.3 The petitioner, indicated above, states that on 04.05.2018, the identity certificate to which reference has been made above, would expire.

¶23

According to the petitioner, the identity certificate is the only travel document available with him in consonance with provisions of Section 4 (2)(b) of Passport Act, 1967.

¶24

It is also the petitioner’s case that though a request for renewal of his identity certificate was made to Consulate General of India (Chicago), USA (Consulate) as far as back 25.10.2017, there has been no movement in the matter.

¶25

5.1 In support of this contention the petitioner has set out the following details in the petition:

¶26

(i) Webfile No.USACP052FD17.

¶27

(ii) Receipt no: USACR0007617.

¶28

W.P.(C) 2572/2018 2 of 3

¶29

5.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid application was followed by a request to the Consulate to look into matter via an email dated 02.01.2018. The petitioner as it appears’ practically, is at his wit’s end as to what next is he required to do in the matter.

¶30

The petitioner says that there has been no response to his request for renewal of his identity certificate.

¶31

Given fact that no counter affidavit has been filed, this Court would have no option but to accept the averments made in the application which are backed by an affidavit.

¶32

7.1 Consequently, prayer made in the writ petition, is allowed. The respondents are directed to process the petitioner’s application for renewal of his identity certificate.

¶33

This exercise will be completed within 10 days from today.

¶34

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

D asti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶36

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶37

APRIL 17, 2018 neelam

¶38

3 of 3

¶39

W.P.(C) 2572/2018

Tenzin Rabga v. Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tenzin Rabga 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India & Anr. Vs B.C. Kailay

Debasis Bera Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary and Anr.

Rajesh Prasad Srivastava Vs Union of India and Ors.

Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Neeraj Kumar & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Ravin Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sher Noble Manav Vs Union of India & Anr.

Lata Lochav Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Prasad Srivastava Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gagan Dhawan and Ors. Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Anr.

Abhishek Aggarwal & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ram Niwas Goel Vs Union of India and Ors.

Yogesh Kumar Malik Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.