Hussain Majeed Rasheed Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Hussain Majeed Rasheed Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2, should be directed to process, consider and grant a further one-year extension of the petitioner's Business Visa B-1 Multiple Entry visa within a mandated timeframe. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found it inappropriate to issue any mandatory direction to decide the visa-extension application within a particular period of time.

Ratio / Principle

The Court observed that the respondent authorities were already considering the petitioner's application, as information continued to be sought from him.

Key takeaways

In the Court's view, filing an application before the authority and seeking its disposal without granting enough time to the concerned authority to consider it is wholly unwarranted; a petitioner seeking an early-decision direction should have applied much earlier.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Immigration / Business Visa B-1 extension — W.P.(C) 365/2026, High Court of Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav J., 12.01.2026): Hussain Majeed Rasheed sought (i) a mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to process and grant a further one-year extension of his Business Visa B-1 Multiple Entry (expiring 14.01.2026) by a deadline of 14.01.2026 or within 48 hours of the Court's order, and (ii) a writ of Prohibition restraining coercive action, overstay proceedings, penalties, deportation or blacklisting during pendency. The Court noted the extension application was filed only on 29.12.2025, that the petitioner approached the Court on 07.01.2026, and that the respondents were already considering the matter, having sought information on 30.12.2025 and 08.01.2026. Declining to compel disposal within a fixed period — holding that seeking disposal of an application without allowing the authority enough time is 'wholly unwarranted' — the Court disposed of the petition without issuing the sought directions. No statutes or precedents were cited.

$~98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 365/2026

HUSSAIN MAJEED RASHEED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Saeed Masroor, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, ⁠Ms. Nyasa Sharma and ⁠Mr. Ankit Khatri, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R % 12.01.2026

The petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

“A) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding Respondent No. 2 to forthwith process, consider and grant extension of the petitioner’s Business Visa B-1 Multiple Entry for a further period of one year, upon due verification of the accompanying documents, positively by 14.01.2026 or within 48 hours of the receipt of the order (passed by this Hon’ble Court), whichever is earlier, without insisting on any conditions save those statutorily mandated; and/or

B) Issue a writ of Prohibition restraining the Respondents from initiating any coercive action, overstay proceedings, penalties, deporting or blacklisting against the petitioner during the pendency of this petition and until disposal of the visa extension application as directed; and/or” the facts, however, indicate that the petitioner was very much aware about the expiry of his viza on 14.01.2026.

The petitioner seems to have filed an application for extension of his

Business Visa B-1 only on 29.12.2025, and on 07.01.2026, he has

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 15/01/2026 at 13:39:15

approached the Court seeking expeditious disposal of his application.

On advance instructions, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that even on 30.12.2025 and 08.01.2026, some information was sought from the petitioner. It, thus, appears that the respondent authorities are already considering the petitioner’s application. 4. Therefore, the Court does not find it appropriate to issue any mandatory direction to decide the application within a particular period of time. If the petitioner were to seek such a direction, he should have filed the application much earlier. Filing of the application before the authority and seeking its disposal without granting enough time to the concerned authority to consider it, is wholly unwarranted.

Under these circumstances, the petition stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

JANUARY 12, 2026/P/MJ

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 15/01/2026 at 13:39:15