Dismissed

Elena Vorobeva v. Foreigners Regional Registration Office (Frro)

Kerala HC25 Jan 2016WP(C)/878/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On behalf of a Russian national blacklisted by the government for violating tourist visa conditions, the Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to set aside the ban and allow entry to India. The bench held that once a blacklisting is in force, the person cannot be admitted unless the record is revoked.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to quash the ban and allow entry into India was dismissed, though the petitioner retained liberty to challenge the blacklisting.

Elena Vorobeva Vs Foreigners Regional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 878 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

------------------

¶8

ELENA VOROBEVA, D/O.VELERY, RESIDING AT PAROVOZNAYA STREET, BUILDING NO.9, FLAT 33, KRASNOYARSK CITY, RUSSIA 660 069 REPRESENTED BY MR.SHAHNAWAZ HUSSAIN AKHOON S/O.GHULAM HUSSAIN AKHOON, RESIDING AT SAYANA VILLA MANGALAMUKH, KURAKKANNI ROAD, VARKALA 695 141.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN MATHEW (THEREZHATH) SRI.JOBIN JOHN SRI.P.R.ASHOK KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

----------------------

¶12

1. FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO) TC 14/1377, VAZHUTHACAUD, OPPOSITE GANPATHI TEMPLE THYCAUD P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014 REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER.

¶13

2. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION,

¶14

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, EAST BLOCK VIII, LEVEL- V, SECTOR 1, R.K PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER.

¶15

3. THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001 REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY.

¶16

4. THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 110 001 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.

¶17

5. EMBASSY OF INDIA

¶18

6-8 VORONTSOVO POLYE, MOSCOW, RUSSIA 105064 REPRESENTED BY THE VISA OFFICER.

¶19

6. TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 008 (KERALA) REPRESENTED BY THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR.

¶20

R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 878 of 2016 (H)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE APOSTILLE DATED 22.12.15 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND ATTESTED BY THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION AUTHORISING MR.SHAHNAWAZ HUSSSAIN AKHOON TO REPRESENT THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT IN THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE RUSSIN NATIONAL PASSPORT BEARING NO. 713562281 ISSUED ON 11.3.11 TO TBE VALID TILL 11.3.2021.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE BUSINESS VISAS BEARING NO.VI 6039201 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE TOURIST VISA BEARING NO. VJ 2308294. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE INTRODUCTORY LETTER DATED 28.5.15 ISSUED BY THE RUSSIAN COMPANY IN FAVOUR OT THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE INVITATION LETTER DATED 1.4.15 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN COMPANY CALLED PALM HERITAGE MEDI TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED.

¶31

EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.4.15 ISSUED BY THE LAWYER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE MUTLI ENTRY BUSINESS VISA BEARING NO.VJ7027044 DATED 4.6.15 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11(A): COPY OF THE E-TICKET RECEIPT ISSUED BY QUTAR AIRWAYS QR 0232 TO PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO TICKET OF QATAR AIRWAYS BEARING NO. 157-2338690095.

¶34

EXHIBIT P11(B): COPY OF THE BOARDING PASS ISSUED BY THE QATAR AIRWAYS QR 0506 TO PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO TICKET OF QATAR AIRWAYS BEARING NO. 157-2338690095.

¶35

EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 12.11.15 ISSUED BY QAYAR AIRWAYS IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE RETURN FLIGHT TICKET BEARING NO. 157-2306306827 TO MOSCOW.

¶36

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 10.8.15 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶42

================== W.P.(C).No. 878 of 2016

¶43

==================

¶44

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2016

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

The petitioner is a Russian National. She approached this

¶47

Court seeking following reliefs:

¶48

“i. Call for the entire records leading to the impugned order dated 07.08.2015 of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, temporarily banning the petitioner from crossing the International Immigration at the 6^th respondent airport, by disregarding the Exhibits P2 passport and P9 visa issued by the 5^th respondent, scrutinize and set aside the same by holding it as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶49

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to facilitate the Immigarational clearance of petitioner on her arrival at the 6^th respondent airport during the currency of the Exhibit P9 visa.

¶50

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the Exhibit P13 email dated 10.08.2015 sent by the petitioner with respect to the temporary ban by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents for crossing of International Immigration at 6^th respondent airport by the petitioner.

¶51

iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶52

On arrival at Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner has

¶53

been returned back to Russia for the reason that the petitioner

¶54

has been black listed by the 3^rd respondent. It was found out

¶55

that the petitioner violated earlier tourist VISA granted to her.

¶56

W.P.(C).No. 878 of 2016 - : 2 :-

¶57

Therefore the authority thought fit to black list her. In para 6

¶58

and 7 it is stated as follows:

¶59

“6. Tourist visa is granted to a foreigner whose sole objective of visiting India is recreation, site seeing, casual visit to meet friends or relatives etc. No other purpose or activity is allowed on the strength of the said visa. But the writ petitioner having scant respect to Visa rules and regulations, again violated Visa conditions of Tourist visa by involving herself in business activities in India which is incongruent with the Visa regime. The writ petitioner had indulged in business activities such as taking houses on rent and carried out subletting activities, worked as broker in hiring accommodation to visiting Russians by taking one month's rent as commission from Indian house owners etc. She had also maintained a Website vk.com and advertised regarding Accommodation, Yoga, Medical and Ayurvedic tours and excursions for the visiting foreigners especially Russians.

¶60

As the writ petitioner had blatantly violated the conditions of Tourist Visa she was BLACKLISTED by the 3^rd respondent based on the proposal dated 04.06.2015. The action of the 3^rd respondent is fully in conformity with the rules and regulations of Visa Manual. “

¶61

The issue relating black listing is not before this

¶62

Court. Therefore that issue is left open for a challenge to be

¶63

made by the petitioner.

¶64

However the petitioner urges that she may be given opportunity to come to India to take her belongings and settled certain issues at Thiruvananthapuram. This prayer is opposed by

¶65

the learned ASG.

¶66

In fact once the person is blacklisted, whatever be reason that person cannot be allowed to come into India, unless

¶67

W.P.(C).No. 878 of 2016 - : 3 :-

¶68

the black listing is revoked. Therefore with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the black listing, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶69

sd/-

¶70

sab

¶71

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Elena Vorobeva v. Foreigners Regional Registration Office (Frro)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elena Vorobeva v. Foreigners Regional Registration Office (Frro)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nibu K.Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Saramma Varghese Vs Secy to Govt.

Dara Shafee @ H.Shafeeq Rahman Vs the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

K.K.Sreenivasan Vs the Commissioner

Sivaraman Vs Geologist

K.Ramakumar Vs Additional Advocate General