S.B. DESHMUKH, J.–We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Asst. Solicitor General for respondent No. 1 and learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 at length. In view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 21059/2009 and by consent of the parties, we are considering this petition for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. Rule Notice waived by respective learned Advocates for the respective respondents.

3. Learned Govt. Advocate presented a copy of the communication/ order dated 10.8.2009. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in the Court, submitted that this copy of the order has been served to the petitioner on August 20, 2009 at 17.00 hours. Statement made by learned Advocate for the petitioner is accepted. Taken on record. Copy of the order which is presented by learned Govt. Advocate is marked for identification and taken on record.

4. Resume of some relevant facts would suffice to appreciate the contentions and submissions on behalf of the parties. The petitioner is a British National, presently residing at House No. 46. Quitala, Aldona, Bardez Taluka, State of Goa. The petitioner states in his petition that he is married to an Indian National. Mrs. Ujjwala Balasaheb Raut and from the wedlock, they have a daughter Kum. Khasa. aged 3 years. After the marriage of the petitioner, according to the petitioner, on October 11, 2006, the petitioner was issued a PIO Card (Person of Indian Origin Card) bearing No. P 0320764. This card was issued to the petitioner, according to the contentions raised by the petitioner in para 3, by the Vice Consul. Consulate of India, New York, USA in terms of Notification No. 26011/4/98-F.I dated 19.8.02. According to the petitioner, this card has been issued by the Ministry of Home Afairs, Union of India. It is further stated in para 6 that on August 10, 2009, respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police and Foreigners Registration Officer, State of Goa, Panaji, Goa) addressed a letter to the petitioner. A copy of this letter is Annexure C of the petition. By this letter, the petitioner has been informed that his PIO Card No. P 0320764 had been cancelled by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi. The petitioner was informed to hand over the said PIO Card to respondent No.2 for onward submission to the Under Secretary, Government of Goa. Home Department (F&CD). In para 7, a categorical statement is made by the petitioner that on the same day i.e. on August 10, 2009, the petitioner handed over his PIO Card bearing No. P 0320764 to respondent No. 3. In para 23 of the petition, it has been further alleged by the petitioner that nothing was informed or communicated to the petitioner about cancelling/revoking of the PIO Card. Communication of the respondent bearing No. 25022/65/09.F II dated 21.7.09 has been perceived by the petitioner when he received respondent No. 2's communication/notice dated 10.8.09.

5. On behalf of respondent No.1, an affidavit is sworn in by one Mr. Ashok Kumar, son of late Shri K.L. Chadha, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, is filed (page 25). In para 2 of this affidavit in reply, it has been stated that the petitioner who is a foreign national, has no locus standi to file the petition and there is no violation of any fundamental light, available to 5 the petitioner as a foreign national. In para 3, it has been stated that the PIO Card was issued to the petitioner by the Vice Consul, Consulate of India, New York, USA in terms of the Notification No. 26011/4/ 98-F.I dated 19.8.02. Copy of the Notification is Annexure R1. In para 4, a categorical statement is made that the PIO Card scheme is framed under executive powers of the Union of India. In para 5, it has been pleaded that there is no right conferred upon the person who has been granted PIO Card to hold the