Delhi High Court - Orders
Niranjankumar Desai vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 2023
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1084/2021
NIRANJANKUMAR DESAI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suresh Chandra Sharma & Mr.
Sandeep Kr Mishra, Advs. (M:
9999074369)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Soni (CGSC), with Mr.
Prateek Rana & Mr Devvrat Yadav.
Advs. (M: 8800219545)
Mr Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing
Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Kartik
Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 11.04.2023
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the counsel is unable to contact the Petitioner any more. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner is, accordingly, discharged from the matter.
3. As recorded in the order dated 28th January, 2021, the Petitioner was seeking renewal of the OCI card. The grievance of the Petitioner was that despite repeated representations, the OCI card is not being issued to the Petitioner.
4. Counter affidavit was directed to be filed by the Union of India ('UOI'). Mr. Anil Soni, ld. CGSC appearing for the UOI submits that in terms of the counter affidavit, there is discrepancy in the name of the Petitioner. It is reflected as Niranjan Kumar D Desai, Niranjan Kumar Desai Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.04.2023 12:41:21 & Niranjan Kumar Dalsukhbhai in three different documents. The relevant extract of the counter affidavit is set out herein below:
"3. That US Passport of Petitioner reflects his name as" Niranjan Kumar D Desai' , whereas he had filled up in his OCI Application "Niranjan Kumar Desai". The said error was pointed out by CKGS/Respondent No.4, although he failed to take any corrective action.
4. It is pertinent to state that, even in Petitioner's cancelled Indian Passport his name was reflected as "Niranjan Kumar Dalsukhbhai" and as per the contract of CKGS/Respondent No. 4, the incomplete application would be sent back to the applicant, after 21 days of the registration and accordingly Petitioner's Application for OCI card was rejected by CKGS. Copy of Petitioner's cancelled Indian Passport is annexed as ANNEXURE-R3.
5. That as per the guidelines of Chapter 21 of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Cardholder Scheme, under Proviso 21.2.2 (a) its says Proof of present citizenship - copy of present valid passport with validity of minimum 6 months at the time of submission of application, WHEREAS, the applicant had applied for OCI on an expired Canadian Passport."
5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that in view of this inconsistency in the names used by the Petitioner, the OCI card was not issued to the Petitioner. Ld. counsel for the Respondent also points out the abusive language being used by the Petitioner to the authorities. He makes a reference to pages 28 and 29 of the Petitioner to highlight this contention.
6. Considering the stand taken by the UOI in the counter affidavit and the documents revealing three different names, the rejection of the OCI card Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.04.2023 12:41:21 does not deserve to be interfered with. If the deficiencies are rectified by the Petitioner, the Petitioner is free to file the fresh application for issuance of the OCI card. If so, the same shall be processed in accordance with law.
7. Considering the language that has been used by the Petitioner against the authorities, costs of Rs.10,000/- are imposed upon the Petitioner. Any fresh application for the OCI card, if any filed by the Petitioner, shall only be considered if the said costs is deposited within 8 weeks with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
APRIL 11, 2023/dk/am Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.04.2023 12:41:21