Issifou Mama v. Union Of India And ORS
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10614/2024 ISSIFOU MAMA .....Petitioner Through:
Mohd. Rashid, Mohd. Shamim and Mr. Dipak Raj, Advocates.
versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Mr. Hussain Taqvi, G.P. with Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Ms. Ranjana Jetly and Mr.
Yogya Bhatia, Advocates for R-1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 13.09.2024 1.
The Petitioner, a citizen of Republic of Benin, is aggrieved by his blacklisting, thereby restricting his entry into India without providing any reasons for the same.
2.
Counsel for Petitioner has presented the following facts and contentions:
2.1.
On 10th May, 2019, the Petitioner was issued a business visa for entry into India which was valid up to 09th August, 2019. Petitioner was due to apply for the extension of his visa, however, due to the outbreak of COVID19, this extension was not sought. 2.2.
Thereafter, on 07th April 2021, he obtained his exit permit and he left India on the said date.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
2.3.
On account of losing his old passport, Petitioner applied for Indian eVisa with his new passport, however, the same was rejected and no reasons for the same were provided. Upon approaching the High Commission of India Office in Lagos, he was informed that he had been blacklisted but this time again, he was not informed of any details as to the duration of the said blacklisting or the reasons for the impugned action. 2.4.
Since, Republic of Benin recognizes dual citizenship, Petitioner reapplied for the grant of Visa on the passport issued to him by another country - Côte d'Ivoire which was granted to him having one year validity on 20th December, 2023. On the basis of this Visa, the Petitioner travelled to Mumbai on 26th December, 2023 where he was stopped by the immigration officers and deported back to his country.
2.5.
Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner made two representations dated 22nd March, 2024 and 25th March, 2024 to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of External Affairs requesting to remove his name from the blacklist and permit his entry into India. Subsequent reminders were also sent to President of India and the Prime Minister of India, but to no avail. 2.6.
In this background, Petitioner submits that he has been blacklisted without adhering to the principles of natural justice as he was neither given any pre-decisional hearing nor any reasoned decision regarding the grounds of his blacklisting. He states that the only information provided to him is that he has been blacklisted. As a result, he has been deprived from seeking entry into the country. Hence, the Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondent No. 2 to pass a well-reasoned order after affording a personal hearing to him and on considering Petitioner's representation dated 22nd March, 2024. 3.
The Court has considered the facts and contentions of the parties. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
4.
Without going into the question of maintainability of the present petition, it is noticed that the Petitioner's representations dated 23rd March, 2024 and 25th March, 2024 have not been decided. 5.
Thus, without going into the merits of the case, the Respondents are directed to consider the Petitioner's representations, in accordance with law and inform the decision so rendered to the Petitioner. 6.
All right and contentions of the parties are left open. 7.
In case the decision rendered is adverse to the Petitioner's interest, he shall be at liberty to assail the same, in accordance with law. 8.
The present petition, along with pending applications, if any, is disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2024 as The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.