Negative Report By DM Does Not Decide Claim For Visa And Citizenship, Must Be Decided By Competent Authorities: Allahabad High Court
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that a negative report by the District Magistrate does not decide the claim for visa and citizenship. The Authorities have to decide the same based on merits, it said.The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed:“The authorities vested with the jurisdiction to decide the claim existing and the claim...
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that a negative report by the District Magistrate does not decide the claim for visa and citizenship. The Authorities have to decide the same based on merits, it said.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed:
“The authorities vested with the jurisdiction to decide the claim existing and the claim made being pending before them, we cannot shut out the case of the petitioner merely on the basis of the negative report submitted by the District Magistrate, at this stage.”
Petitioner, a Brazilian national, had applied for a visa extension. However, her application for visa extension was rejected and she was directed under section 3 (2) (c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Lucknow to depart immediately.
Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order of the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Lucknow. She sought a writ of mandamus with directions to the respondent authorities to process her application seeking citizenship by naturalization under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. She also sought an extension of her honorary employment visa.
Counsel for the respondent contended that the employment visa if granted for 10 years, had elapsed in her case and could not be extended. Therefore, the petitioner could not continue to reside in India, it was submitted.
It was argued that though the portal shows that her application is pending since the Leave India Notice was issued to the petitioner, her application stood rejected on a deemed basis.
The Court observed that the Union Government has taken a dual stand in such an issue. It said:
“On one hand, the authorities of Union of India are hesitant in considering on merits the application made by the petitioner for extension of employment visa and citizenship through naturalization and on the other hand they do recognize the pendency of such applications by making such disclosure on their web portal also in view of the stand taken in the written instructions, as noted above.”
The Court observed that a negative report made by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj does not affect the decision-making power of the authorities before whom the applications for visa extension were pending.
Without entering into the merits of the application, the Court directed the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner's visa extension application as well as her application for citizenship within two months. The Court also granted interim protection to the petitioner against coercive measures.
Case Title: Elizabeth Cahill v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34 [WRIT - C No. - 35732 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 34
Counsel for Petitioner: Anurag Khanna, Sr. Advocate assisted by Raghav Dev Garg
Counsel for Respondent: S.P. Singh, Sanjay Kumar Om