Telangana High Court
Fae Francis. Country Of Origin vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 30 September, 2020
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, B.Vijaysen Reddy
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.7437 of 2020
Date: 30.09.2020
BETWEEN
Fae Francis. Country of origin: Ivory Coast and others
... PETITIONERS
AND
The State of Telangana
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Hyderabad, T.S. and others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Arikatla Elison
Counsel for the respondents : GP for Home
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy) Instant writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the release of the petitioners from the alleged illegal detention of Inspector, Cyber Crime Station, Cyberabad, respondent No.3.
The three petitioners are foreigners. While petitioner No.1 is a citizen of Republique De Cote D'Ivoire, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the citizens of Federal Republic of Nigeria.
According to the petitioners they were arrested from different places in New Delhi, ostensibly on the ground that they were involved in a cheating case in Telangana. They were not taken to the local Police Station at New Delhi. Instead the respondent No.3 and other Police Officers brought them to Telangana by train. They were not produced before any Judicial Magistrate in Hyderabad. Hence, they had no alternative except to file the present writ of Habeas Corpus.
Initially, the writ affidavit was deposed by Mr. Sumit Sarna, Advocate, S/o. Mr. Anand Sarna, having office at KG 3/18, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. Incidentally, Mr. Sumit Sarna is the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, the learned Government Pleader Home, has raised a preliminary objection: the counsel representing the petitioners in his professional capacity cannot be the deponent in the writ petition, and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Further objection was also raised stating that the Foreigners Regional Registration Officers and Civil Authority, Hyderabad, (for short 'FRRO') also has to be made as a party respondent in the writ petition.
3
In response to the said objections, the learned counsel for the petitioners filed I.A. No.2 of 2020, seeking to allow the amended affidavits of writ petition to be accepted. The petitioner No.1 deposed the amended writ affidavit on his behalf and also on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. I.A. No.3 of 2020 is filed seeking to implead the FRRO as the proposed respondent No.4. This Court vide its order dated 22.06.2020 allowed the I.A. No.3 of 2020 and impleaded the FRRO as the respondent No.4 in the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were picked-up from New Delhi and brought to Hyderabad by train stating that they were involved in criminal cases.
On behalf of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, respondent No.2, counter-affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the petitioners were found at Gachibowli under the limits of Cyberabad Commissionerate by the Cyber Crime Team while they were pursuing other Cyber Crime related cases. The petitioners were questioned about their nativity, the reason for their visit to India, and were asked to show their travel documents. Consequently, the petitioner No.1 claimed that he came to India on 15.08.2017, on tourist visa. Ever since then, he has been staying illegally in India. The petitioner No.2 claimed that he came to India on 03.09.2019, on business visa, and even after expiry of his Indian Visa, he has been staying illegally in India. The petitioner No.3 claimed that he came to India in the year 2012, on business visa, and is staying illegally in India since then. As such, the stay of all the three petitioners in India is confirmed as illegal. Thus, they are liable to be deported to their respective countries. It is specifically stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the 4 respondent No.2 that no criminal case is registered against any of the petitioners. Hence, they were not produced before any Magistrate.
It is stated by the respondent No.2 that on the requisition of the Cyber Crime Unit, Cyberabad, the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, has addressed letters to the FRRO requesting him to issue Movement Restriction Orders and also to deport them to their respective native countries as the petitioners do not possess valid travel documents. Upon the said request, FRRO has passed orders dated 16.03.2020 restricting the movement of the petitioners. According to the said orders, the petitioners shall not move out of the premises of Central Crime Station (CCS), Hyderabad, as there is every likelihood that they may go underground or indulge in undesirable activities detrimental to the national security. In the said order, it is observed that non-compliance of the order shall render the said foreigners liable for prosecution under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946. Pursuant to the orders dated 16.03.2020, all the petitioners were lodged in Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, which is a notified Detention Centre, through the Proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City vide D.O. No.7418/2018, dated 29.08.2019, to hold Foreign Nationals, who are staying illegally in the country, till their deportation. It is stated that similar procedure is followed in deporting the foreign nationals, whenever any of the foreign national is found without valid travel documents, and is staying illegally.
It is further stated by the respondent No.2 that on 18.03.2020 the respondent No.3 addressed letters to the High Commission of Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) and Nigeria, New Delhi, for issuing the necessary travel documents (Emergency Certificate) in respect of the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 as they do not have original passports in their possession. Moreover, in lieu of the passports, Emergency Certificates 5 are needed to deport them. But, before receiving the necessary travel documents (Emergency Certificate) from their respective High Commissions, lockdown was announced in India due to COVID-19 pandemic; all the international flights have been cancelled. As and when the travel documents/Emergency Certificates, in respect of the petitioners, are received from their respective Embassies and once international flights start their operation, the petitioners will be deported to their country by duly taking the deportation orders from the FRRO. Thus, it is asserted that the detention of the petitioners at Detention Centre i.e. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, is legal. Hence, the allegations leveled by the deponent to the affidavit are absolutely baseless. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, FRRO, it is stated that all the petitioners have been staying illegally even after expiry of their visas. They are, thereby, violating provisions of Section 14(a) of Foreigners Act, 1946. Further, in pursuance of the Government of India Gazette Notification S.O.234(E) by sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 and in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2)(c) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and subsequent Government of Andhra Pradesh Notification (Home Department) vide G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 30.01.2010, FRRO is the Civil Authority for the jurisdiction of Hyderabad City Police Commissionerate and Cyberabad City Police Commissionerate with effect from 01.02.2010.
It is further submitted by the respondent No.4 that letters were received from the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad vide No.269/CCRB/CYB/2020, dated 12.03.2020, 268/CCRB/CYB/2020, dated 12.03.2020 and 270/CCRB/CYB/2020, dated 12.03.2020, 6 regarding petitioners' suspicious movements without any travel documents in Cyberabad Commissionerate limits, requesting for issuance of Movement Restriction Order (MRO)s against the petitioners. On further scrutiny of the documents, it was revealed that the petitioner No.1, an Ivory Coast National, holder of Passport No.17AL35259, dated 13.06.2017, and valid till 12.06.2022, arrived on 15.08.2017 on the strength of Tourist Visa No.VJ3900059, dated 20.06.2017, valid till 19.09.2017 via Immigration Check Post (ICP), Delhi. The petitioner No.2 is a Nigerian National, holder of Passport No.AI0477474, dated 30.04.2019, and valid till 29.04.2024, arrived in India on 03.09.2019, on the strength of Business Visa No.VK6200045, dated 19.07.2019, valid till 18.10.2019 via Immigration Check Post (ICP), Delhi. The petitioner No.3 is a Nigeria National, holder of Passport No.A01741253, dated 15.03.2010, and valid till 14.03.2015, arrived in India on 25.06.2012 on the strength of Business Visa No.VI4934754, dated 24.05.2012 valid till 23.11.2012 via Immigration Check Post (ICP), Delhi. All the petitioners have been staying illegally even after the expiry of their visas. Thereby, they are violating the provisions of Section 14(a) of Foreigners Act, 1946.
It is submitted by the respondent No.4 that eventually movement restriction orders were passed directing the petitioners that they shall not move out of the premises of CCS, Hyderabad, with a request to the Joint Commissioner of Police, CCS, Hyderabad to enforce the restriction orders till their deportation.
In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners it is stated that in the first week of March, 2020, the petitioner No.1 was arrested from Nawada, Om Vihar-Phase 3, New Delhi stating that he is involved in a cheating case at Telangana. He was not taken to the local Police Station. But instead, the respondent No.3, and other Police Officers, 7 brought him to Telangana by train. They did not produce him before any Judicial Magistrate.
The material on record shows that based on the requisition of the respondent No.2, for passing detention order, the respondent No.4 passed the Movement Restriction Orders dated 16.03.2020, with a request to the Joint Commissioner of Police CCS, Hyderabad, to enforce the same. Accordingly, all the petitioners were lodged in Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, which is the notified Detention Centre, through the Proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City vide D.O. No.7418/2018, dated 29.08.2019, holding Foreign Nationals, who are staying illegally in the country, till their deportation. The respondent No.2 in his counter categorically averred that no criminal case is pending against the petitioners. More so, they have to be deported to their native countries, in accordance with law, after following the required formalities.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality in the orders dated 16.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.4 that was enforced by the concerned authorities.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that an enquiry needs to be ordered in order to find out whether the petitioners were picked up from New Delhi and brought to Hyderabad by train is totally misconceived. For, there is no material placed on record to prove the same. In any case, in this writ petition, this Court cannot direct any enquiry to be conducted once it is obvious that the detention of the petitioners is in accordance with the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992. Further, interestingly, the petitioners did not choose to challenge their 8 movement restriction order dated 16.03.2020, passed by the respondent No.4 and consequential detention by respondent No.3.
In view of the foregoing observations, this Court holds that there is no merit in this writ petition; the same is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ __________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J September 30, 2020 LSK