The Competent Authority's power to impose movement restrictions on foreigners is absolute and unfettered, and the court cannot objectively examine the Authority's subjective satisfaction.

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

This Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the FRRO and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch – II, CID, Mumbai, dated 13th October, 2011, in restriction order No. 09/DCP/ SBII/ FSC/2011, in exercise of powers conferred under Para 11(2) of the Foreigners Orders, 1948, against the Petitioner for not to move out of the limits of Gr. Mumbai District, till the completion of the trial pending against her, arising from C.R. No. 22/2010, registered with L. T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, in connection with motor accident committed by the Petitioner, which resulted in death of PSI Shinde of the Traffic Division and motorcyclist Afzal Akbar and also injured four constables, while driving car, under influence of alcohol as well as drugs.

2) The Petitioner was arrested in connection with the said offence but, came to be released on bail, vide order dated 31st March, 2012, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, on condition that she shall attend the concerned police station once in a week on every Sunday, between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., for interrogation, till filing of charge-sheet and she should assist the investigating agency. Further, she should not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and should not leave India without taking prior permission of the Court.

3) The Competent Authority, in exercise of powers under Foreigners Orders, 1948, however, keeping in mind the background of the case and of the Petitioner, who was holding USA National passport, thought it appropriate to invoke powers under Para 11 (2) of the Foreigners Orders, 1948 and restricted the movements of the Petitioner, by directing not to move out of the limits of Mumbai City District, till the completion of the criminal case against her, failing which, she would be liable for the prosecution under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. That order was passed on 12th April, 2010. The Petitioner challenged the said order, by way of Criminal Writ Petition No. 885 of 2010, before this Court. The principal grievance of the Petitioner was that the said order was passed without issuing any show-cause notice to her, even though it curtailed her right of movement, within India. That plea was resisted by the Respondents on the argument that there was no legal provision necessitating issuance of show-cause notice before issuing the movement restriction order. The Court allowed the said Writ Petition and was pleased to set aside order dated 12th April, 2010, while making it clear that it would not prevent the Competent Authority under the Foreigners Act to issue show-cause notice to the Petitioner, to pass the order of restriction, if so warranted.

4) As per the liberty granted by this Court, the Competent Authority issued notice to the Petitioner on 16th July, 2012 stating that there was every likelihood that the Petitioner may go underground and evade facing the trial in the criminal case pending against her for offences punishable under Section 304, 333, 353, 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 184, 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, read with Section 27 of the NDPS Act. In response to the said show-cause notice, the Petitioner filed detailed reply amongst others asserting that the apprehension expressed in the show-cause notice is baseless. That the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Even though the Petitioner was a foreign national, she is law abiding person and comes from respectable family. She has spent substantial part of her childhood in India and has deep roots in the Society. There was no question of possibility of petitioner's absconding and frustrating the criminal case pending against her. She asserted that she has co-operated with the police in all respects in the past and her conduct has been exemplary. No untoward