Disposed

Rodney Fernando Tirado Moreira v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC12 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/12855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief regarding the non-decision of his representation concerning visa overstay and potential blacklisting. Court directed the Committee to consider the case in the next meeting without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed that petitioner's case be taken up in the next scheduled meeting of the Committee chaired by the Minister of Home Affairs; pending applications disposed.

Rodney Fernando Tirado Moreira Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~102

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12855/2024

¶4

RODNEY FERNANDO TIRADO MOREIRA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sahil Mongia, Mr. Yash Yadav, Ms. Sanjana Samor, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi & Mohit Joshi, Advocate for UOI

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

12.09.2024

On earlier occasion, when the Petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C) 2366/2024, the Court passed an order dated 11^th March, 2024 to the following effect:

¶13

“1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to restore his e-tourist visa bearing No. I006V0121B20 which is valid from 29.02.2020 to 27.02.2025.

¶14

2. The Petitioner came to India on 04.03.2020 on e-tourist visa and was to exit from the country on or before 30.09.2020. Due to onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the visa of the Petitioner was extended from time to time and last of the extension expired on 09.06.2021.

¶15

3. It is stated that the Petitioner was granted exit permits twice, the first one being on 03.11.2021 and the second one on 18.01.2022. Despite the two exit permits, the Petitioner did not exit the country and exited only on 06.10.2022.

¶16

4. The Petitioner’s e-tourist visa has been cancelled on the ground that the Petitioner has overstayed in the country. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has not been given any show cause notice as to why his exit permit should not be cancelled. The Petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court in Mohammad Abdul Moyeed v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 10587/2016 to contend that every

¶17

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 17/09/2024 at 11:02:37

¶18

overstay need not result in cancellation of visa or blacklisting. The Petitioner therefore seeks permission to give a representation to the Respondents explaining the facts as to under what circumstances, the Petitioner exited only on 06.10.2022.

¶19

5. Let the representation be given within a period of six weeks from today and the same be considered as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶20

6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

¶21

7. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the case.”

¶22

Pursuant to the aforenoted order, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 26^th March, 2024 on which the Respondents were to give their decision expeditiously. According to the Petitioner, till date the said representation has not been decided. Further, the Petitioner though his counsel filed a Right to Information³ application dated 20^th May, 2024 seeking the status of the said representation, however, such request was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

¶23

Mr. Vijay Joshi, counsel for Union of India, states that the Petitioner’s case has been referred to a Committee chaired by the Minister of Home Affairs, who decide matters of blacklisting and cancelation of visa. He further submits that the said Committee only convenes a meeting two to three times a year.

¶24

Be that as it may, the Petitioner’s present grievance is that his representation dated 26^th March, 2024 has not been decided till date. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Petitioner’s case be taken up in the next scheduled meeting of the Committee chaired by the Minister of Home Affairs and the decision thereof be conveyed to the Petitioner.

¶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 17/09/2024 at 11:02:37

¶27

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the merits of the Petitioner’s claim as urged in the present writ petition. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶28

With the above direction, the present writ petition is disposed of, along with pending application(s).

¶29

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶30

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024/ab

¶31

3 “RTI”

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 17/09/2024 at 11:02:37

Rodney Fernando Tirado Moreira v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rodney Fernando Tirado Moreira 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Rajpal Vs Adm (Notification) & Anr.

Dilip Jha Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Rina Ghoshal Vs the State Trading Corporation of India Limited

Sh Ravinder Singh & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sanjeev Kaushik Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Ausil Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S M.D. Overseas Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ram Kishan Vs the State, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Dr S M Bali Vs Union of India and Ors.

Okinawa Autotech Internationall Private Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India

Dinmani Sharma Vs Principal District and Sessions Judge & Ors.

Dr. Tarun Kothari Vs District Magistrate / District Appropriate Authority (West),Pc & Pndt Act, Gnct of Delhi

Khwaja Naqebullaha Vs District Magistrate of South -East Delhi & Ors.