The impugned order of expulsion lacked reasons and violated the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the rights of a foreigner, associated with life and personal liberty, inhere in all persons living in India, citizen or foreigner, not only by virtue of Article 21 but also go along with a healthy human existence, which is the birth-right of any human being.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The writ petitioner is a Polish citizen and has come to India on a student visa, which was lastly renewed till August 31, 2020. He did his graduation of the first cycle degree studies in Oriental Studies, with a major in Indian Studies, from the Warsaw University and claims to have a detailed and organized knowledge of Bengali and Sanskrit literature and to be familiar with Hindi literature. The petitioner was awarded as best student by the Warsaw University in the academic year 2015-2016. The Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Warsaw, granted the petitioner a diploma which reflects his proficiency in Bengali, Hindi, Sanskrit and Tamil literature as well as command over history, philosophy and religion, art and aesthetics, socio-cultural issues (within the scope of natural environment and ethnic, demographic and political situation. The petitioner's diploma, annexed to the writ petition and accepted by the authorities while granting and renewing his visa, indicates that he can read, analyze and interpret literary texts and other works of culture (film, press, social writing) of South Asia and appropriately place them in their cultural context, apart from the ability to establish relations and cooperate with representatives of other cultures and acts in aid of sharing and promoting cultural and linguistic heritage of South Asia.

2. The petitioner did a one-year course to Study Sanskrit at Visva Barati, Santiniketan and was selected for a General Scholarship Scheme (GSS) for the academic year 2016-2017 by the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), pursuant to which the petitioner applied for a visa to India and obtained the same on June 6, 2016. The petitioner duly completed the said course in Sanskrit with distinction and was thereafter admitted into a diploma programme in the Bengali language at 'Bhasha Bhavan' (Institute of Languages, Literature and Culture) in Visva Bharati, which he also passed with distinction. After such a successful academic career, the petitioner sought admission to the post- graduate programme (M.A.) in Comparative Literature conducted by the Jadavpur University. Since the petitioner comes from a low-income family, he applied for a concession in fees by the said University, which was endorsed by the Head of the concerned department. Thereafter the petitioner has been pursuing such course, which was likely to be completed by August, 2020. As such, the petitioner applied and obtained a renewal of his Student Visa on October 1, 2019, valid till August 31, 2010.

3. Corroborative papers in support of the aforesaid averments have been annexed to the writ petition itself and have not been denied as such by the Respondents although, since no affidavits were called for in view of the urgency of the matter, as an inordinate interim order favouring the petitioner would tantamount to allowing the writ petition at the inception, it is deemed that none of the averments in the writ petition are admitted.

4. However, subsequently a Leave India Notice (LIN) dated February 14, 2020 was issued to the petitioner, allegedly in exercise of powers conferred by sub- section (2) (c) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1946 Act"), by the respondent no. 2, that is, the Foreigners' Regional Registration Office, Kolkata (FRRO), against which the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues that the LIN dated February 14, 2020, being devoid of reasons, ought to be set aside on the face of it.

6. It is further argued that no hearing, worth the name, was given to the petitioner prior to issuance of the LIN. It is submitted that from the annexures at pages 57 and 58 of the writ petition, it is evident that the last date for the petitioner to appear before the respondent no.2-authority was fixed by the said authority as February 24, 2020, for the purpose of being heard. However, the LIN itself, an