$~103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 925/2026 and CM APPL. 4537/2026 DIYASUN BEHZAD KAVIYANIPOUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Hersh Desai, Advocate.

Versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr Syed abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr.Muhammad Aamir khan, Advocate. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 22.01.2026 CM APPL. 4538/2026 and CM APPL. 4582/2026 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 925/2026 and CM APPL. 4537/2026

1. The Court in W.P.(C) 724/2026 has decided the writ petition which relates to the petitioner’s mother.

2. The order dated 19.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 724/2026 is extracted as under:-

“1. The petition is for setting aside the order passed by the respondent, cancelling her Overseas Citizen of India Card, in exercise of powers under Section 7D (a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (the Act).

2. It is seen that against orders passed under Section 7D (a) of the Act, an application for review may be preferred by any person aggrieved by the same, under Section 15A of the Act. The said provision is extracted below, for reference:

“15A. Review.―(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Central Government, may, within thirty days from the date of such order, make an application for review of such order:

Provided that the Central Government may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time:

Provided further that an application for a review of an order passed in terms of the provisions of section 14A shall be disposed of in the manner provided for in the procedure as may be laid down under clause (ia) of sub-section (2) of section 18.

(2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Central Government shall, make such order as it deems fit, and the decision of the Central Government on such review shall be final”

3. Learned counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that in view of the impugned order, she will have to immediately return to Iran; and therefore, prays that her rights be protected in the interregnum.

4. The impugned order is dated 01.01.2026 and the petition has been filed only on 17.01.2026, i.e., more than two weeks after the passing of the impugned order. Considering that the petitioner has not shown urgency in approaching the Court, it may not be open for the petitioner to now claim that there exists urgency in the matter.

5. Be that as it may, if the petitioner takes recourse to the alternate remedy, let the same be dealt with due expedition.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of along with all pending applications. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to re-approach the Court if her grievance is not redressed through the alternative remedy.”

3. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition stands disposed of along with all pending application(s) with the same liberty as was granted to the petitioner in W.P.(C) 724/2026.

4. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 22, 2026 Nc/ ksr