THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.P.No.32325 OF 2017
ORDER:
Heard Ms.S.Nanda, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.7.
2. The relief prayed in the writ petition is to declare the action of respondents in not taking action against respondent No.7 under the Foreigners Act as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct respondent Nos.1 to 6 to take action against respondent No.7 by registering F.I.R against her for overstay in India even after expiry of her VISA period and to prosecute her in a competent court of law and consequently to deport her to her country i.e., Brazil.
3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7.
4. In the counter affidavit of respondent No.6, it is stated that a petition dated 31.08.2017 was received from the writ petitioner stating that respondent No.7, who a foreigner, is overstaying her VISA period for more four years and that she is a Brazil national. Her VISA was valid up to 27.09.2013. She married one Mr.Susheel Choubey, a native of Bhubaneshwar, Orissa State on 30.01.2012 at Arya Samaj Mandal, R.P.Road, Secunderabad as per Hindu customs. She has also obtained aadhar card. Respondent No.7 lodged a complaint in Cr.No.579 of 2013 with KPHP Colony Police Station against her husband and the same was registered for the offences 2 under Sections 498(A) and 323 IPC. Respondent No.7 also filed a domestic violence case before the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, Cyberabad and a pre-litigation case before the District Legal Services Authority at Kukatpally for maintenance.
5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Secretary (Consular), Embassy of Brazil at New Delhi addressed a letter dated 06.08.2013 to the Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad requesting him to recommend the Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) to extend the VISA duration of respondent No.7. Based on such request, the Inspector General of Police vide letter dated 08.08.2013 requested the FRRO to extend VISA to respondent No.7. The Embassy of Brazil, New Delhi also requested the learned Family Court at Secunderabad by letter dated 25.10.2013 to issue appropriate direction to the FRRO to extend her VISA in the absence of her husband's documentation so that she can continue with the judicial proceedings. It is further stated that on 05.10.2017, the FRRO addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur Zone, Cyberabad, stating that respondent No.7 is holding a Brazilian passport, which is valid up to 27.09.2013 and that respondent No.7 has applied for extension of VISA and her case is pending with the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and thus it cannot be said that respondent No.7 is overstaying in India. It is also stated that the Consulate authorities are regularly verifying the activity of respondent No.7 and other similarly situated persons.
3
6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that a private complaint is lodged by the petitioner with same averments before the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, Cyberabad, which, on reference to the police station, was registered on 02.01.2018 as Cr.No.15 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 420, 464, 468 IPC and Sections 5, 14 and 10 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 against respondent No.7.
7. In the counter affidavit of respondent No.7, it is stated by respondent No.7 that her application dated 12.09.2013 for extension of VISA is pending with the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. Her husband Mr.Shushil Choubey has filed a divorce petition viz., F.C.O.P.No.235 of 2013 before the learned Family Court, Secunderabad, and the same was dismissed by order dated 14.06.2018. F.I.R.No.15 of 2018 registered pursuant to complaint lodged by the writ petitioner was closed, as there was lack of evidence and a final report was filed on 06.12.2018 before the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, Cyberabad. Respondent No.7 has addressed dated 27.05.2019 to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority requesting for regularization of her migratory status.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that petitioner is a stranger and does not have any locus standi to file this writ petition. Moreover, Cr.No.15 of 2018, which was registered pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, was also closed. The petitioner herein has been set up by her husband, who had 4 suffered judgment before the learned Family Court in F.C.O.P.No.235 of 2013.
9. Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to institute this writ petition.
10. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, taking judicial notice of the fact that petitioner admittedly was granted VISA for a limited time and has been overstaying in India for more than 8 years and her application dated 12.09.2013 for extension of VISA is pending, this court considers it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to forthwith act upon the application dated 12.09.2013 submitted by respondent No.7 and consider the request of the petitioner for extension of VISA and issuance of Overseas Citizen of India Card within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: 26.11.2021 Lrkm