Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Embassy in Balwinder Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 29 April, 2011Matching Fragments
2. The Petitioner holds an Indian passport issued by the Regional Passport Officer („RPO‟), Jalandhar (Respondent No. 13 herein) on 17th February 2006, valid upto 16th January 2016. The Petitioner was unemployed and had a desire to work abroad. He applied for a job at Jarona in Spain in 2007. The Petitioner was considered for the post of peon by a company at Jarona in Spain. He submitted necessary documents with the Embassy of Spain at New Delhi for issuance of work visa for Jarona in Spain. It is stated that the documents were verified by the officers of the Embassy at Spain. The Petitioner‟s credentials were also checked by the police and a certificate to that effect was issued on 6th July 2007. It was specifically stated in the said certificate as under:
"There is no adverse information against Shri/Smt/Kum. BALWINDER SINGH S/o, D/o W/o Jit Singh SPOUCE NAME.....HOLDER OF Indian Passport No. F6537221 issued at Jalandhar on 17th Feb 06 which would render him/her ineligible for the grant of travel facilities including visa for SPAIN."
3. The Petitioner received a call from the Embassy of Spain in October 2007 confirming the genuineness of his work permit. He was asked to produce the medical certification. The Petitioner underwent the medical test. After completion of all formalities work Visa No. 200700/7041 INE was issued by the Embassy of Spain at New Delhi on 16th April 2008 for three months which was further extended to 2011. It is stated that the Petitioner went to Spain and worked as a peon in a shop at Jarona in Spain. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner was registered under the Social Security Scheme in Spain and was also given tax identity number. The relevant documents in this regard have been enclosed with the petition. On 25th November 2009, the Petitioner returned to India to meet his family during the vacation. On 21st February 2010, he boarded a flight from Indira Gandhi International („IGI‟) Airport at New Delhi to return to Spain, with one stoppage at Brussels Airport at Belgium. While in Brussels, when he was about to take the connecting flight to Spain, officials of the Jet Airways, (Respondent No. 4), began questioning the Petitioner in English and Belgium languages. It is stated that the Petitioner being illiterate could not answer the queries posed. Although he informed the officials that he had a valid work permit, he was kept in illegal confinement at Brussels Airport and was not allowed to fly at Spain. Finally, he was deported to India on 22nd February 2010.
12. The affidavits of the FRRO and the documents placed on record show that an inquiry was made by the FRRO from the Spanish Embassy about the genuineness of the Petitioner‟s travel documents only on 10th January 2011 for the first time. Another reminder appears to have been sent on 11th February 2011, in response to which the Embassy of Spain, by the letter dated 21st February 2011 informed that the residence card of the Petitioner was a genuine document. It is also evident from the letter dated 23 rd February 2011 of the Embassy of Spain addressed to the SHO, PS IGI Airport that the letter sent a query in that regard only on 22nd February 2011. In other words, only after notice as issued in the present petition, did the FRRO and the SHO made the first move to write to the Embassy of Spain . This was almost a year after the Petitioner was deported to India and the criminal case instituted against him.
16. What is unfortunate is that when the Petitioner arrived in New Delhi, pursuant to such deportation no effort was made by the airport immigration authorities in New Delhi to make any proper inquiry. A copy of the seizure report of the Indian Immigration Control at the IGI Airport, (which is at Annexure P-5 to the petition), gives the reasons for seizure of the Petitioner‟s passport and travel documents as under:
"The residential permit of Spain seems to be doubtful."
17. The affidavits and documents placed on record in this petition by the FRRO shows that there was no basis for the above „doubt‟ as to genuineness of the Petitioner‟s residence permit. No attempt was made to verify this from the Embassy of Spain. Instead, the FRRO straightway sent the papers to the police and an FIR was registered against the Petitioner under Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC. The present petition was filed on 17th August 2010. Notice was issued on 20th August 2010 and accepted by counsel for the Respondents on that date. Yet till 10th January 2011 no attempt was made by the FRRO to write to the Embassy of Spain to verify the genuineness of the Petitioner‟s residence permit. The Police on its part also made no effort to make inquiries with the Embassy of Spain till 22nd February 2011. Within ten days of such inquiry, Embassy of Spain confirmed the genuineness of the Petitioner‟s documents. This then led to the immediate closure of the criminal case. Had this inquiry been made soon after the deportation of the Petitioner, the criminal case would have been unnecessary. He may have been able to immediately return to Spain to resume his employment. On account of the utter negligence and callousness on the part of the Respondents, the Petitioner had to needlessly undergo the trauma of a false criminal case against him for over one year and suffer the deprivation of his passport and travel documents. He was unable to return to Spain to resume his employment. The direct consequence of the arbitrary action of the Respondents has been irreversible loss of employment and earning of the Petitioner, apart from the mental trauma undergone as a result of the false criminal case.