Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajesh Datta @ Raj vs The State And The Frro on 12 January, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:14.01.2021
19:02:42
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10643/2020
RAJESH DATTA @ RAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sushma Sharma, Mr. Girish
Advocate.
versus
THE STATE AND THE FRRO ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. T. S. Nanda, Adv. for R-1. (M:
9999648869)
Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 12.01.2021
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The Petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking extension of stay visa and grant of an OCI permit.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he had arrived with his wife in India in December, 2007 and his visa has been extended annually from time to time. The last extension was granted to him on 3rd December, 2019 till 2nd December, 2020.
4. On 15th September, 2015, the Petitioner had applied for grant of an OCI permit as well. He also filed an application for extension of his visa on 30th November, 2020. However, on 1st December, 2020, the Petitioner received an email stating that his application for visa extension, on the online platform of the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (hereinafter, 'FRRO') was reflected as 'closed' without assigning any reasons. Accordingly, the prayer in the writ petition is as follows:
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:13.01.2021 22:42 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:14.01.2021 19:02:42"i. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions whereby directing the respondent no. 2 for grant of extension of stay VISA / OCI permit to the Petitioner as per law.
ii. Pass further directions to the FRRO for not imposing any overstay penalty against the present petitioner while granting the VISA extension as the petitioner had applied the extension of VISA application within time with the Respondent No. 2, however the same got closed by the Respondent No. 2 without assigning any reason. Hence, the petitioner should not be deemed liable for the negligence caused by the Respondent No.2.
iii. Pass directions to the FRRO to provide OCI permit on the same application filed by the petitioner on 15/09/2015 which shows 'under process' despite the passage of more than 5 years.
iv. Pass any other order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. "
5. Ms. Sushma Sharma, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the wife and children of the Petitioner are OCI permit holders. Accordingly, the Petitioner's application for grant of OCI may be considered favorably. Mr. Mahajan, ld. counsel wishes to seek instructions.
6. Considering the nature of the matter and the fact that no reason has been given by the FRRO for closing the Petitioner's application, it is deemed appropriate to direct the FRRO to consider the present writ petition as a representation. The FRRO shall accordingly take a decision within a period of two weeks on the extension of the stay visa and also take a decision on the grant of the OCI permit to the Petitioner. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the Petitioner. No coercive steps shall Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:13.01.2021 22:42 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:14.01.2021 19:02:42 be taken against the Petitioner for a period of two weeks after the communication of the order by the FRRO.
7. With these observations, the present petition along with all pending applications, is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JANUARY 12, 2021 dj/T Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRATHIBA M SINGH Signing Date:13.01.2021 22:42