Disposed

Issifou Mama v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC13 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/10614/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A citizen of Benin challenged his blacklisting preventing entry into India, alleging lack of reasons and natural justice. The Court directed the Respondents to consider the petitioner's representations in accordance with law and inform the decision, disposing of the petition without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents to consider representations and inform decision to Petitioner.

Issifou Mama Vs Union of India and Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 10614/2024 ISSIFOU MAMA .....Petitioner Through: Mohd. Rashid, Mohd. Shamim and Mr. Dipak Raj, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

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.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 13.09.2024

¶9

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.

¶10

Counsel for Petitioner has presented the following facts and contentions:

¶11

2.1. On 10^th May, 2019, the Petitioner was issued a business visa for entry into India which was valid up to 09^th 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.

¶12

2.2. Thereafter, on 07^th April 2021, he obtained his exit permit and he left India on the said date.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 20:20:01

¶14

2.3. On account of losing his old passport, Petitioner applied for Indian e- Visa 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.

¶15

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 20^th December, 2023. On the basis of this Visa, the Petitioner travelled to Mumbai on 26^th December, 2023 where he was stopped by the immigration officers and deported back to his country.

¶16

2.5. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner made two representations dated 22^nd March, 2024 and 25^th 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 22^nd March, 2024. 3. The Court has considered the facts and contentions of the parties.

¶17

¶18

Without going into the question of maintainability of the present petition, it is noticed that the Petitioner’s representations dated 23^rd March, 2024 and 25^th March, 2024 have not been decided.

¶19

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.

¶20

All right and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶21

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.

¶22

The present petition, along with pending applications, if any, is disposed of.

¶23

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶24

SEPTEMBER 13, 2024 as

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 20:20:01

Issifou Mama v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Issifou Mama v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dominic Simon Vs Pio Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Mohanlal Arora Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Gaon Sabha Kapashera Vs Ram Singh

Shri. Sunil Kalgounda Patil Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. and Ors. & Anr.

Ziaul Haque & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Ram Kunal Vs B.S.E.S.Rajdhani Power Ltd.

M/S Swastik Oil Products Manufacturing Navsari Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sher Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dominic Simon Vs Pio Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Mohanlal Arora Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rodney Fernando Tirado Moreira Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mohammad Minhaj Mustaqueem Vs Ethics and Medical Registration Board & Ors.

Sm Milkose Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi International Arbitration Center & Anr.

Aurionpro Solutions Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi