The rights of foreigners in India are limited and do not include the right to move throughout the territory of India, as per the Foreigners Act, 1946.

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioners, whose nationality is Iranian. The Petitioners have been prosecuted by the Dongri Police Station, in connection with C. R. No. 24/2009, under Section 417, 419 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, read with Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. They have been granted bail in connection with the said criminal case, during the pendency of the trial. However, the Foreign Regional Registration Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch – II, CID, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Competent Authority') issued restriction order in exercise of powers conferred on him as per Para 11(2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948, dated 2nd November, 2011.

2) The Competent Authority has noted that the Petitioners were holding Iran National Passports, issued at Mumbai on 13th February, 2009 and valid till 14th February, 2014. He was of the opinion that as criminal case was registered and pending against the Petitioners, during the process of trial of that case, there was every likelihood that the Petitioners may go underground and evade facing the trial. Upon recording this subjective satisfaction, the Competent Authority passed the restriction order directing both the Petitioners to refrain from moving out of the limits of South Mumbai and Mazgaon Court, Mumbai, till the completion of the trial of the case. The order also records that noncompliance of the said order would result in prosecution under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

3) This order was challenged by the Petitioners, by way of Writ Petition No. 721 of 2012. The said Writ Petition, however, came to be disposed of vide order dated April 25, 2012, as the Authority concerned agreed to examine the representation to be made by the Petitioners for relaxing the restrictions imposed under order dated 2nd November, 2011 to the extent possible.

4) As a consequence thereof, the Petitioners made representation to the Competent Authority on 8th May, 2012. In the representation, it is conceded by the Petitioners that their nationality is Iranian. However, it is asserted that each of the Petitioner was born, brought up, educated, married and well settled in Mumbai, along with their family members at Mumbai, Maharashtra. In other words, they were permanent residents of India. The Petitioners relied upon several documents to substantiate the above stand. The representation also refers to the interest of the Petitioners in several immovable properties, institutions and Private Family Trust.

5) Notably, in the representation, the Petitioners admit that when they were minor, their parents had obtained Iranian passport, which has been renewed from time to time and lastly on 13th February, 2009 for a period of five years and is valid up to 14th February, 2014 for staying in India. They have admitted that the Visa given to them imposes restrictions that it is not valid for employment/business, no work or recourse to public fund's. The Petitioners, however, have questioned the propriety of restriction put on their employment vide order dated 2nd November, 2011. Accordingly, the Petitioners called upon the Competent Authority to quash and set aside the above restrictions, as they would lose their bread and butter and unable to survive without doing any business or employment in India, despite the Visa to stay in India.

6) The Competent Authority considered the said representation and by his order, dated 7th June, 2012, relaxed the restriction imposed in the order dated 2nd November, 2011 up to the limits of Greater Mumbai.

7) The Petitioners, by the present Writ Petition, have challenged the said order dated 7th June, 2012 and the Visa restrictions imposed upon them and their children, by the concerned Authorities.

8) We have heard Mr. Shirazi – Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Kevic Setalwad Addit