Mano Bichemane v. The Director (Foreigners)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.No.17635 of 2025 MANO BICHEMANE ... Petitioner Vs 1.
THE DIRECTOR (FOREIGNERS), MAJOR DHYAN CHAND NATIONAL STADIUM, INDIA GATE CIRCLE, NEW DELHI-110 002.
2.
THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER, NO.26, SHASTHRIBHAVAN ANNEX, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI- 600 034.
3.
THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER (FRRO) BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, (MHA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CHENNAI-600 006.
4.
THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, CHENNAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 027.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in No.25023/03/2025/F-VII dated 1/5
27.01.2025 and to quash the same is illegal, incompetent, ultravires and consequently direct the first respondent to remove the name of the petitioner from the adverse list.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sudagar For R1 to R3 : Dr.D.Simon Central Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.01.2025.
2. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the order was passed as per the earlier directions of this Court in W.P.No.33844 of 2024. By the said order, this Court had directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2023. Pursuant to the direction, as per the impugned order, it is stated that the review committee had examined the request made by the petitioner in the representation to remove his name from the adverse list and permit him to enter into India and they found that the facts and circumstances are such that the petitioner's name cannot be removed from the adverse list. It is further stated in the impugned order that the proceedings of the blacklist review committee are confidential in nature. 2/5
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order does not disclose any reason. The petitioner is entitled to a reasoned order. The petitioner is very much interested in coming back to India and therefore, he is challenging the impugned order.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr.D.Simon, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel who took notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.
5. At the outset, it can be seen that the petitioner is a French National and is not a citizen of India. If any right to life is violated, Article 21 of the Constitution of India gives rights even in respect of a foreign national also. There is no such violation of right to life demonstrated in the writ petition. Therefore, the statutory authority namely the review committee, after review, holds that the circumstances of the case do not permit them to lift the bar and remove the name of the petitioner from the blacklist. Therefore, I do not see any error in the order so as to enable the petitioner to agitate the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3/5
6. In view thereof, finding no merits, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 29.04.2025 nsl To 1.
THE DIRECTOR (FOREIGNERS) MAJOR DHYAN CHAND NATIONAL STADIUM, INDIA GATE CIRCLE, NEW DELHI-110 002.
2.
THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER, NO.26, SHASTHRIBHAVAN ANNEX, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI- 600 034.
3.
THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER (FRRO) BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, (MHA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CHENNAI-600 006.
4.
THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, CHENNAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 027.
4/5
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl 29.04.2025 5/5