The petitioner challenged his detention at Trichy immigration refusing foreign travel and claimed compensation. The Court held the action was not illegal or unreasonable due to visa-discrepancy and dismissed the petition, noting compensation does not arise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.6590 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.6590 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.5095 of 2022
Jegathiswaran
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to travel aboard and provide to adequate compensation to the petitioner.
1/4
W.P(MD)No.6590 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.S.Jinna
For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Assisted by H.Velavadhas, Senior Panel Counsel.
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner states that he was unlawfully stopped at Trichy immigration point and not allowed to travel abroad. He wants compensation to be paid by the respondent.
3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that the petitioner had studied only upto 8th standard. For such categories of persons, an endorsement “ECR required” will be made. Whenever such endorsement is found, the Immigration Authority is bound to enquire the traveller. When the petitioner was queried as to why, he wanted to visit Dubai, he clarified that he was going there on job purpose. But then, his visa indicated that
2/4
W.P(MD)No.6590 of 2022
he was to visit as a tourist. There was clear discrepancy between the visa entry and the statement made by the petitioner before the Immigration Authorities. In these circumstances, the petitioner was not allowed to travel abroad.
4.I am clearly of the view that the respondents' action cannot be justified as illegal or unreasonable. The question of directing the respondents to pay compensation does not arise at all. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.12.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias
3/4
W.P(MD)No.6590 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.6590 of 2022
18.12.2023
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Director General of Foreign Employment's action in denying permission for foreign travel due to discrepancy between visa and affidavit is illegal or unreasonable.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the denial of foreign travel.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jegathiswaran
The Chief Immigration Officer, O/o. The Chief Immigration Office, Tiruchirappalli International Airport, Tiruchirappalli
The Immigration Officer, O/o. The Immigration Officer, Tiruchirappalli International Airport, Tiruchirappalli
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
