Point of Law : Where right of a person was adversely affected by an order passed by the authorities, he is entitled to pre-decisional notice or even to postdecisional hearing, depending upon the facts of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner-appellant who is a foreign national has preferred this intra-court appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17905/2019-Khalid Ahmed Ghilan Amran Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors..

2. The petitioner is a national of Yaman country. He got admission in M.Tech (Upstream) Course in Petroleum Engineering in the National Institute of Medical Sciences University, Jaipur (in short, ‘NIMS’) in the year 2013. He passed out the said course in the year 2016. Thereafter, he got himself registered in NIMS as a research student for Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering in the year 2016 itself.

3. The petitioner-appellant learnt that the M.Tech.(Upstream) Course in Petroleum Engineering and that of Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering to which he took admission were not the approved Courses as per the Schedule-II of the NIMS Act. In the above situation, the petitioner-appellant wanted to switch over in some other University for which NOC was not issued by the NIMS.

4. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6128/2019 before this Court for a direction upon the NIMS to issue NOC to him for the change of institution.

5. Since the VISA of the petitioner was expiring on 11.04.2019 and no interim protection was granted to him in the writ petition, the petitioner-appellant preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.630/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.04.2019 with the direction to the NIMS University to issue bona fide certificate to the petitioner-appellant and the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) was directed to extend the stay of the petitioner-appellant in India for at least 10 days with the further direction to the Union of India to take decision with regard to issuance of VISA to the petitioner-appellant upon verification of the necessary material.

6. It appears that after the aforesaid D.B. order the FRRO extended his VISA for one year from 12.04.2019 to 11.04.2020. This extension was granted as the petitioner-appellant had submitted that he has pursuing Ph.D. from Vivekanand Global University, Jaipur for which an admission letter was issued to him on 07.10.2019.

7. In view of the fact that necessary certificate was issued by the NIMS and the petitioner-appellant had got admission in another University, he withdrew his Writ Petition No.6128/2019.

8. Even though the research VISA granted to the petitioner-appellant was up to 11.04.2020, the FRRO, Delhi vide order dated 03.09.2019 on the basis of some adverse report received, canceled the said VISA granted to the petitioner-appellant on the ground that he was not pursuing his research studies for which purpose the VISA was granted and as such, was directed apply online for exit permit. The information regarding the VISA cancellation was communicated to the petitioner-appellant vide letter dated 04.09.2019 with a request to apply online for exit VISA. The above orders dated 03.09.2019 and 04.09.2019 were challenged by the petitioner-appellant by filing the present writ petition giving rise to this appeal.

9. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2022 dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner-appellant has no right to stay indefinitely in India. He was granted VISA initially as a student and then for research purposes. The student VISA in accordance with the VISA Manual could not be beyond the period of 5-1/2 years and the research VISA beyond period of 3 years and as such, petitioner-appellant is not entitled to overstay beyond the above periods. Moreover, since he is not pursuing any research course or Ph.D as his admission even to Vivekanand Global University, Jaipur had been cancelled, he has no right to remain in the country.

10. The basic submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that the petitioner-appellant had come to India for studies and that he wanted to purs