Vasanthan.A v. The Chief Secretary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN A.Vasanthan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chief Secretary, Union of India, Prime Minister Office, Jawahar Lal Nehur Bhawan 23-D, Janpath, New Delhi 110011.

2.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India, Jawahar Lal Nehur Bhawan 23-D, Janpath, New Delhi 110011.

3.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi 110001.

4.Immigration Officer, UK High Commission, Office of UK High Commission, New Delhi 110001.

5.Greenwich Student Finance, University of Greenwich, International Office, QM161, Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, 1/6

London, SE10 9LS.

Email studentfinance@gre.Ac.uk.

6.The Joint Director (Higher Secondary), Directorate of Govt. Examinations, Chennai 600 006.

7.Blusestone Overseas Consultants, Represented by Sridhar, 2nd Floor, Kaveri Complex, Opposite to ATC Depot, Paramati Road, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate steps to revoke the Ban of 10 years entry clearance for VISA imposed by the 4th respondent by the communication dated 25.03.2021 and consequently direct the 5th respondent to refund the course fee of 13650/- pound sterling (UK Money) paid by the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ghireedharan For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, Senior Panel Counsel for R1 to R3.

Mr.M.Lingadurai, Spl. Government Pleader for R6.

2/6

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The writ petitioner wants to join the fifth respondent institution. He applied for visa. It was refused for some reason. The fourth respondent had also imposed ban of ten years on the petitioner's entry clearance for visa. The petitioner is also not able to obtain refund of the fee which he already paid. In these circumstances, the petitioner wrote to the respondents 1 to 3 for taking steps to have said ban revoked. Since there was no response, the present writ petition came to be filed.

2.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

3.I made it clear that this Court will not have any power to review the decision taken by the fourth respondent. At this stage, the learned senior panel counsel for the Central Government informed the Court that the petitioner had sent a letter to the second respondent and the second respondent has replied that 3/6

they will not be in a position to assist the petitioner to get back the amount paid by him. Thus, the petitioner's case has already been considered by the authority. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to grant any relief to the petitioner. The petitioner has to workout his rights elsewhere. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

02.03.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:- The Joint Director (Higher Secondary), Directorate of Govt. Examinations, Chennai 600 006.

4/6

5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias 02.03.2023 6/6