Madras High Court
Micheal Kwaku Yeboah vs Foreigners Regional ... on 17 July, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.1085 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.(MD) No.1085 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.8230 of 2023
Micheal Kwaku Yeboah ... Appellant
-vs-
Foreigners Regional Registration Office
Bureau of Immigration
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
Sastri Bhavan Annex
Chennai-600 006 ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 06.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.12970 of 2023, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1085 of 2023
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 06.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.12970 of 2023.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ
appeal, are as follows:
2.1. The appellant admittedly is a citizen of Ghana.
He came to India to establish a business under the name and
style of “Awesie Afra Private Limited”, with a registered office at
Kolkatta, West Bengal. It is the case of the appellant that the
said Company was incorporated under the provisions of the
Indian Companies Act, under ROC Kolkatta No.233209. The
appellant is one of the Directors and it is stated that his wife is
the another Director and the another Director is admittedly an
Indian, by name, Sandip Majumder.
2.2. The appellant came to India on 22.04.2021
with a business Visa (B2), issued by the Indian Embassy at
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1085 of 2023
Ghana. He was permitted to stay in India for a year. It is the
case of the appellant that he was settled in Tuticorin and was
doing a business of importing cashew nuts and selling it to the
regional purchasers. Though the visa period expired and the
application for renewal of the same was due even from
12.01.2022, the appellant preferred to overstay in India and
applied for extension of visa period, again on 15.03.2023. At
that time, it was informed to the appellant that his earlier
application had been closed with a direction to the appellant to
pay a sum of Rs.68,000/- towards exit penalty.
2.3. Insofar as his subsequent application filed on
15.03.2023 is concerned, his application was rejected with a
direction to the appellant to leave the shores of the country on
or before 06.06.2023. Challenging the rejection of his
application for extension of visa period, the appellant filed the
writ petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1085 of 2023
2.4. The learned Single Judge, after finding that the
appellant was negligent, refused to grant any relief to him.
While doing so, the learned Single Judge has also recorded the
objection raised by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
placing reliance on Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
3. It is admitted that the appellant came to India on 22.04.2021
with a business visa for one year and the visa period expired on 21.04.2022,
however, he overstayed in India thereafter. As per Section 3(2)(c) of the
Foreigners Act, 1946, the overstay of the appellant in India is illegal. The
appellant, therefore, cannot be permitted to overstay in India. Even though
the appellant filed an application for extension of visa period and the same
was pending consideration, he was, as per law, advised to leave the country
and pursue the matter. As no provision was cited, either before the learned
Single Judge or before this Court that a person, whose visa period is expired,
can be permitted to overstay merely because the application filed by him for
extension of visa period is pending consideration. In that view of the matter,
this Court finds no merit in this appeal.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1085 of 2023
4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the order of the respondent directing the appellant to pay a sum of
Rs.68,000/- towards exit penalty is not valid. This ground was in fact not
raised before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are not inclined to
consider the same in this writ appeal. The learned Single Judge had also
observed that the petitioner's overstay will not be put against him, while
considering his application.
5. Hence, for all these reasons, this writ appeal fails and it is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
17.07.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1085 of 2023
To:
Foreigners Regional Registration Office,
Bureau of Immigration,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
Sastri Bhavan Annex,
Chennai-600 006.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1085 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.1085 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.8230 of 2023
17.07.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
