Telangana High Court
Dr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, ... vs The State Of Telangana Rep By Its ... on 30 November, 2021
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
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
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.
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
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
