W.P.(C)/1835/2019 of MOHD JAVED AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Parties
- + W.P.(C) 1835/2019 & CM No.8572-8573/2019 MOHD JAVED AND ANR (PETITIONER)
- UNION OF INDIA AND ANR (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (2)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 1835/2019 & CM No.8572-8573/2019MOHD JAVED AND ANR.MOHD JAVED AND ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through:Mohd. Sajid with Mr Bilal AnwarKhan, Advocates.Khan, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through:Ms Maninder Acharya, ASG with MrAnurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Mr SahilSood, Mr Harshul Choudhary and MrViplav Acharya, Advocates for UOIwith Mr Manoj Kumar Jha, DeputySecretary.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUO R R%28.02.2019
1.The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning‘Leave India Notice’ dated 07.02.2019 issued to petitioner no.2. It is statedthat petitioner no.2 is citizen of Pakistan and has been residing in India onthe basis of long-term visa issued to her in the year 2015. The petitionersare married and it is stated that they have two children, aged about 11 yearsand 6 years, out of their wedlock. Both the children are studying in schoolsin Delhi. It is also not disputed that petitioner no.1 is an Indian citizen.
2.Ms Acharya, learned ASG appearing for the respondents states thatthe impugned notice had been passed based on certain inputs, which wereconsidered by the concerned authorities.
3.This Court is unable to accept that petitioner no.2 has any right toreside in India, since the matter of granting visa is at the discretion of theGovernment of India. This Court has also perused inputs available with therespondents and is unable to accept that the impugned order is whollyarbitrary or without any basis. As noticed above, petitioner no.2 is unable toestablish any right to reside in India. In this view, this Court is unable togrant the relief as sought for.
4.In terms of the impugned order, petitioner no.2 ought to have left thiscountry by 22.02.2019. Considering the pendency of the said petition, thesaid period is further enhanced by period of two weeks from today.
5.The petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. All pendingapplications are disposed of.
6.Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
FEBRUARY 28, 2019MK
VIBHU BAKHRU, J