Bombay HC Goa bench sets aside deportation of Russian woman
The court observed that the impugned deportation order should not have been made without minimum compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play.
3 min read
The court said that a clarification, at least, could have been sought from the petitioner and a decision could have been taken considering the same.
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside a deportation order against a Russian national for alleged breach of visa conditions, observing that it was not a case of threat to internal security of the country and that the Article 14 of the Constitution, which provides for equality before the law, protects not only the citizens, but also non-citizens.
The matter pertained to a 53-year-old Russian woman residing in Goa, who was granted a work visa, but was alleged to have violated the e-visa conditions. The court allowed a writ petition by the Russian national, challenging the deportation order dated May 17, 2023, and an order dated February 7, 2023, by which her visa extension for foreigners’ services was deleted.
In a recent order, a division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Bharat P Deshpande observed that while the Central government is vested with wide powers in matters of deportation, such powers must be exercised fairly and without a hint of arbitrariness.
The court observed that the impugned deportation order should not have been made without minimum compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play.
“Principles of natural justice and fair play are an essential concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Article protects not only the citizens but also non-citizens…This was not some case of threat to internal security of the country or like matters. The unilateral allegation was about breach of one particular condition subject to which the visa was granted,” the court observed.
The court said that a clarification, at least, could have been sought from the petitioner and a decision could have been taken considering the same.
The counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there was no violation since the petitioner had resigned from her company to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the visa. The counsel contended that the petitioner had applied for dependency visa on February 7, 2023, after resigning from her employment, adding that the application was denied on the basis of the deportation order.
The counsel for the respondents, representing the authorities including the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) Goa and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) FRRO, argued that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the E-visa and hence, the deportation order had to be made. The counsel submitted that since a deportation order was made, there was no question of considering any further application for a dependency visa.
The court set aside the impugned deportation order dated May 17, 2023 and it also quashed the order denying the dependency visa application. The court further directed the authorities to decide the petitioner’s application for a dependency visa expeditiously and within two months.
You May Like
