Allowed

Tenzin Choezin v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC18 May 2018W.P.(C)/5293/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed a petition for issuance of a passport to the petitioner, Tenzin Choezin. Applying the ratio of a recent judgment (Sonam Tashi), the court directed respondents to consider the issuance within eight weeks. The petitioner's father was born in India, making him eligible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider issuance of passport to the petitioner within eight weeks of receipt of this order.

Tenzin Choezin Vs Union of India and Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 5293/2018 TENZIN CHOEZIN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Simarpal Singh Sawhney and Mr. Sidhant Krishan Singh, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms. Mahima Bahl and Ms. Kriti Awasthi, Advs. for R-1

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶8

O R D E R % 18.05.2018

¶9

CM No.20544/2018

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

W.P.(C) 5293/2018

¶12

Issue notice. Mr. Makhija accepts notice. In view of the order I propose to pass, he says he does not wish to file a counter affidavit in the matter.

¶13

It is not disputed before me by counsel for the parties that if the decisions of this Court were to be applied, then, the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for issuance of a passport.

¶14

The issue raised in a recent judgment dated 9.2.2018, passed in W.P.(C) 1023/2018, was titled: Sonam Tashi vs. Union of India and Ors. The facts obtaining in this case are no different.

¶15

W.P.(C) 5293/2018

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Briefly, in this case the petitioner says that his father was born in Kulu, Himachal Pradesh (India), on 4.5.1960.

¶18

It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner was born in Mahendragada, Odisha (India), on 7.12.1994.

¶19

6.1 If these assertions are correct, then, to my mind, the ratio of aforementioned judgment would apply on all tours to the petitioner as well .

¶20

6.2 The other judgments of this Court which take the same view have been referred to in paragraph 6 of the very same judgment i.e. to Sonal Tashi's case .

¶21

Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the issuance of passport to the petitioner keeping in mind the ratio of the aforementioned judgment. This exercise will be carried out by the respondents at the earliest, though, not later than eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶22

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶23

MAY 18, 2018 rb

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

W.P.(C) 5293/2018

Tenzin Choezin v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tenzin Choezin v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamshuddin Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Sh Bhagwan Dass and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Ayush Tiwari Vs Faculty of Law & Ors.

Garuav Dahiya Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Akshant Anil Pathak Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors.

Dharmender Kumar Vs M/S Advance Machinery and Anr.

Pnc Delhi Industrialinfra Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation

Delhi Waqf Board Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India through Secrtary to the Govt. of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Vs Shri P. Ramakrishna Raju and Ors.

Harish Hospitality Vs Ambedkar University Delhi

Feroze Naseem Vs Delhi Wakf Board & Anr.

Sunita Bhasin Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rajpal P Vs Central Information Commission and Ors.

Rajesh Khanna Vs Union of India and Ors.