DHARAMSOTKESARKE SEWAK SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 460/2019
[2022] HKCFI 272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 460 of 2019
BETWEEN
| Dharamsotkesarke Sewak Singh | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office | Putative Respondent | |
| and | ||
| Director of Immigration | Putative Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
consideration of documents only; or consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The The applicant is an illegal immigrant. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, his appeal was dismissed by the Board.
2. The applicant filed Form 86 on 18 February 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. By letters received by Court on 10 January 2022, 12 January 2022 and 19 January 2022, the applicant applied to cancel his application because “… I want to go back my homeland India. … I beg you shut my case close as soon as possible …”.
4. The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015:
“It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5th ed) at §18.18.1)….” [67]
5. As it would serve no practical purpose for his application, the Court should refuse to grant him the remedy and the applicant’s application should be dismissed.
6. The application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 7th day of February 2022
| (M.O. WONG) (Ms) | |
| for Registrar, High Court |
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notesfor the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must: | ||||
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)). | Sent to the Applicant on 7 February 2022 Dharamsotkesarke Sewak Singh Applicant’s ref. no: Nil. | Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 7 February 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 3336/16/3/141/IN785; BOR 1119/18/3/2/IN274 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCZ 9001212/17; QA T/C 2072/15 (Formerly RBCZ 479/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1