Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Cost On Party For Suppressing Foreign Citizenship, Denies Permission To Travel Abroad

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an application seeking permission to travel abroad filed by a man after finding that he had suppressed a material fact regarding his citizenship–that he was a citizen of a foreign country, Republic of Vanuatu and was not an Indian citizen. The Court also imposed costs of ₹50,000 to be deposited with the Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. The court noted that the applicant, when he filed the present application, disclosed for the first time that he was a citizen of Republic of Vanuatu. Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said:"During the course of arguments in CM-5629-CWP-2026, it came to light that in CWP-12631-2023, petitioner No.3 had made an averment that he is citizen of India, residing in Gurgaon, State of Haryana, whereas in actuality, at the time of filing the said petition (CWP-12631-2023) on 30.05.2023, he was holding the passport of Republic of Vanuatu and since there is no concept of dual citizenship in India, he was actually not the citizen of India, which fact was suppressed by him, while obtaining final order from this Court on 20.01.2026 in CWP-12631-2023. We have no knowledge as to whether applicant/petitioner (Prerit Goel) had disclosed this fact before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10530 of 2026 or not...Least that is expected of a petitioner who invokes the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution read with supervisory jurisdiction of a High Court, is that no material fact is to be suppressed while drafting and filing the petition. In a petition seeking cancellation of Look Out Circular, which is issued where there is flight risk of the petitioner, citizenship of the petitioner assumes relevancy."The Court opined that applicant Prerit Goel by posing himself as a citizen of India, which fact was not correct since he was citizen of Republic of Vanuatu, suppressed material fact. In all probability, if this fact was known to this Court, then possibility of this Court not having allowed the petition cannot be ruled out.The Court had allowed a plea, taking on record an affidavit dated May 12, 2026, filed by petitioner. However, the substantive application, filed under Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to travel to London (U.K.) from April 15, 2026, to September 20, 2026, was dismissed.The petitioner had sought to travel abroad pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal, which directed that such permission be sought from the High Court.During the hearing, it emerged that in the original writ petition, the petitioner had claimed to be an Indian citizen residing in Gurgaon. However, it was revealed that at the time of filing the writ petition on May 30, 2023, he held a passport of the Republic of Vanuatu. Since Indian law does not recognize dual citizenship, the Court noted that he was not an Indian citizen at the relevant time.The Court observed that this fact was material, particularly in a case involving the quashing of a Look Out Circular (LOC), where the risk of flight is a key consideration. It held that the petitioner had suppressed a material fact and obtained the final order dated January 20, 2026, by misrepresentation.Rejecting the explanation of “inadvertence and bonafide mistake” offered in the affidavit, the Court held that such suppression undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings. It further observed that had this fact been disclosed earlier, the outcome of the writ petition might have been different.Despite these findings, the Court refrained from recalling its earlier judgment dated January 20, 2026, noting that the matter is presently sub judice before the Supreme Court.Accordingly, the application seeking permission to travel abroad was dismissed with costs. The Court also directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Supreme Court for consideration in the pending SLP titled Bank of Baroda & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Goel & Ors.Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate (arguing counsel), with Mr. Raghav Kakkar, Advocate, for applicant/petitioner No.3.Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India (arguing counsel), withMr. Arvind Seth, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI.Mr. Vishal Ahuja, Advocate, for respondent 3 and 4Title: Ashok Kumar Goel and others v. Union of India and othersClick here to read order

Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Cost On Party For Suppressing Foreign Citizenship, Denies Permission To Travel Abroad

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Cost On Party For Suppressing Foreign Citizenship, Denies Permission To Travel Abroad

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers