Posts
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has stayed the operation of an order dated November 27, 2009 of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs directing a Sri Lankan Tamil residing in Bhavani Sagar in Erode district, to leave Indiaimmediately.
Justice K. Venkataraman granted the injunction while passing interim orders on a writ petition from Jeganathan Prathapan challenging the deportation order.
According to the petitioner, he reached India on March 18, 2007 with a valid Sri Lankan passport and a tourist visa. He registered his name as a non-camp Sri Lankanrefugee in Indiain the Sri Lankan Refugees Register on March 23, 2007, maintained by the Valasarawakkam police, where he was residing. He shifted his residence to Bhavani Sagar on September 9, 2007 and got a certificate from the Valasarawakkam police inspector about the change of residence.
At the time of change of residence, the Erode district police superintendent registered his name in the foreigner category and not as a Sri Lankan refugee. He was issued a residential permit to stay up to April 29, 2009, at the Bhavani Sagar address. He was also directed by the SP to apply for permission to stay in Indiafor any period beyond April 29, 2009. And he applied for permission to stay in India from April 29 to April 30, 2010, due to the ethnic violence in Sri Lanka.
However, by an order dated November 12, 2009, of the Union home ministry, not served on the petitioner directly, he was directed to leave Indiain one month. He applied to the Union ministry to furnish a copy of the deportation letter to know on what grounds he was asked to leave the country. Instead of offering a copy of the deportation letter, the Union ministry on November 27 asked him to leave Indiaat once.
The petitioner contended that many Sri Lankan nationals, who were at present residing in Bhavani Sagar and registered themselves as non-camp Lankanrefugees had not been asked to leave India. Unless the contents of the November 12 order were made known to him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the impugned order would amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, he contended. – (Express News Service)
Comments