Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
David Karim Andrew Nisbet
Versus
Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, (MHA) Government of India
Writ Petition No.16807 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1, 2 of 2011
Decided on : 01-08-2011
Leave India Notice - Foreigners Registration - Foreigners Act, 1946, Foreigners Rules, 1939 - The court considered the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners Rules, 1939, which require compulsory registration with the Civil authorities within 14 days of arrival in India for foreigners holding a visa valid for more than 180 days. The court also highlighted the provision for belated registration by condoning the delay on payment of a specified amount. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with registration requirements and the discretion vested with the Civil Authority in condoning delays.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a British national, arrived in India for employment but faced difficulties in finding a residential accommodation and registering with the authorities within 14 days as required by the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners Rules, 1939. The respondent issued a Leave India Notice, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition to quash the notice and seek direction for registration.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's difficulties in securing a residential apartment and the employment agreement, but upheld the respondent's decision to issue the Leave India Notice due to the petitioner's violation of registration provisions. However, the court granted the petitioner liberty to make a representation for condoning the delay in registration, with an undertaking to pay the penalty, and directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned order to leave India was justified given the petitioner's efforts to secure a residential apartment and employment, despite the violation of registration provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the petitioner's difficulties were acknowledged, the respondent's decision to issue the Leave India Notice was justified based on the violation of registration requirements. However, the court granted the petitioner an opportunity to make a representation for condoning the delay in registration, emphasizing the importance of compliance with registration requirements and the discretion vested with the Civil Authority.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to make a representation for condoning the delay in registration and directing the respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within two weeks. The petitioner was allowed to stay in India until the respondent's decision on the representation.
By consent of all parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. This writ petition is filed to quash the notice of the respondent dated 14.7.2011 directing the petitioner to Leave India, who is holding British National Passport No.706719654 to enable the petitioner to register his name before the respondent for his stay in India.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
(a) According to the petitioner, he is a British National, holding British National Passport No.706719654. The petitioner claims that he is a Hair Educator, Hair Stylist and an Art Director by profession and has studied at Toni & Guy, a prestigious School for Hair Styles. He is doing the profession of training Hair Stylist to Toni & Guy standards throughout the world.
(b) The petitioner was earlier offered employment by M/s.K-Black Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, from 19.2.2010 to 18.2.2011 and he arrived in India again on 7.3.2010 and was employed as a Trainer in M/s. K-Black Fashions Pvt. Ltd and he left India on 15.8.2010.
(c) For staying in India, the petitioner should register his name with the Immigration Authorities within 14 days of his arrival in India. Petitioner's erstwhile employers have taken care of his stay in India during his earlier stay in India. Petitioner stayed between 7.3.2010 and 15.8.2010 at 28A Ajay Apartments, S.V.Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai and there was no bad antecedence during that period of his stay in India.
(d) The said Toni & Guy, U.K., entered into an agreement with Pauls System Technologies (Pvt) Ltd., to open a franchise at Chennai and they requested the petitioner to train their Hair Stylists in India by giving training to the Hair Stylists in their franchise outlet at Shop No.130, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai600014. Petitioner entered into a contract of employment with Pauls Systems Technologies, Chennai on 1.5.2011, as per which the petitioner has to serve as an Art Director and In-saloon Trainer or in such other capacity of an equivalent status as the company shall reasonably require for a period of one year from 1.5.2011.
(e) The petitioner landed at Mumbai on 3.5.2011 and arrived at Chennai by a domestic flight. One of the condition for petitioner's stay at Chennai is, he should register with the respondent on his arrival within 14 days. After his arrival at Chennai, petitioner was residing with one Lazarus Daniel Lenin Paul in his apartment at Flat No.7A, Skylark Apartments, Rutland Gate 5th street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006 and tried to find a residential accommodation. However, he could not find any suitable place immediately.
(f) It is the contention of the petitioner that he contacted the respondent to register his name as per the conditions of registration immediately on arrival and he was informed that unless a rental agreement entered into with the landlord in the building in which the petitioner intend to stay, registration cannot be made as per the rules and regulations.
(g) It is the further case of the petitioner that he was in search of a residential apartment and he could find an apartment only on 6.7.2011, and that he entered into lease agreement with a landlady viz., K.Padma for a period of 11 months in respect of the the building at D.No.85-89 F1 Baba Flats, Aspiran Garden 2nd Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010. Thereafter petitioner contacted the respondent on 13.7.2011 and showed the rental agreement and he was directed to come on the next day.
(h) It is contended by the petitioner that on 14.7.2011 the petitioner sent a communication enclosing a copy of the rental agreement. However no acknowledgment was issued even though the letter was received. On 14.7.2011, the respondents issued the impugned notice stating that the petitioner should leave India within seven days. The said notice is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the Leave India notice was passed without noting the provision to stay without registration beyond
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
