PANJIM: Setting aside the impugned deportation order and denial of the Dependency visa to a Russian national, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) at Goa and Mumbai to decide the petitioner’s application for Dependency visa as expeditiously as possible and within two months.
A Russian woman presently staying at Candolim, had filed a writ petition challenging the deportation order dated May 17, 2023 and order dated February 7, 2023 by which her visa extension for foreigners services was deleted.
The impugned deportation order was issued based on the alleged violation of E-visa conditions, subject to which the petitioner was allowed to stay in India.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Adv A D Bhobe submitted that there was no violation of E-visa and that the deportation order should not have been made without minimum compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play.
He stated that the petitioner had applied on February 7, 2023 for Dependency visa and it was also denied based upon the impugned order dated May 17, 2023. He further stated that the application for Dependency visa was made after the petitioner tendered her resignation from the company.
Deputy Solicitor General of India, Pravin Faldessai told the High Court that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the E-visa and therefore, the impugned deportation order dated May 17, 2023 had to be issued to her. He submitted that since a deportation order was made, there was no question of considering any further application for Dependency visa.
However, the division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice B P Deshpande opined that the impugned deportation order dated May 17, 2023 should not have been made without minimum compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play. This was because the petitioner had claimed that she had not violated any of the terms and conditions subject to which she was granted the visa.
“Principles of natural justice and fair play are an essential concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Article protects not only the citizens but also non-citizens,” the Bench said.
Whilst the Central government is vested with wide powers in matters of deportation, such powers must be exercised fairly and without any hint of arbitrariness.
“This was not some case of threat to internal security of the country or like matters. The unilateral allegation was about breach of one particular condition, subject to which the visa was granted. At least a clarification could have been sought from the petitioner and upon considering the same, a decision could have been taken. This was not done,” the Court said adding that the petitioner had resigned from the company and that there was no doubt about compliance with the terms and conditions of the visa.
After resignation, the petitioner applied for a Dependency visa, which was too denied based upon the impugned deportation order dated May 17, 2023.
The Court stated that until the application for a Dependency visa is decided, the petitioner shall not be deported, subject to her complying with the usual terms and conditions that allowed her to stay in India.
Both the respondents have also been asked to must communicate their decision to the petitioner within 15 days.