The issuance of a Leave India Notice under the Foreigners Act is lawful when based on documented misrepresentation, upholding regulatory authority without violating natural justice requirements.

CAV ORDER

1. The petitioner who is an Australian national/citizen is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Leave India Notice dated May 1, 2019 bearing reference No. 03/FM/BOI/2019-LIN-162, produced as Annexure-A to the petition.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent not to take any further action pursuant to the Leave India Notice produced at Annexure-A and to reverse any action that may have been taken pursuant to the said Leave India Notice; and

iii. Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of this Case, in the interests of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner is an Australian citizen holding a valid Australian passport. He asserts that he was granted an Employment Visa (E-2) on 08.01.2018, permitting multiple entries into India and valid until 07.01.2020. The said visa was issued on the basis of his proposed employment as General Manager of Fisher and Paykel Health Care India Private Limited, an Indian subsidiary of Fisher and Paykel Health Care Limited, a New Zealand-based multinational corporation with operations in 36 countries and distribution of its products in over 125 countries worldwide.

3. The company is engaged in the manufacturing, design, and marketing of medical devices used in respiratory care, acute care, and the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. It is stated that the company has been operating in India since 2008. The petitioner was appointed as General Manager with effect from 01.02.2018 pursuant to an appointment letter dated 11.12.2017.

4. According to the petitioner, prior to his appointment, the Indian operations of the company were headed by an Indian national who functioned as Resident Director and was responsible for managing business operations within the country. It is alleged that during that tenure, the company experienced significant performance challenges, including high attrition rates, particularly within its sales team, adversely affecting overall business performance.

5. The petitioner asserts that the company undertook an internal review or study to analyse the causes of attrition and operational decline. It is claimed that this review revealed that certain members of the senior management were engaged in practices inconsistent with the company’s global ethics, principles, and corporate culture. Consequently, the services of the concerned senior management personnel were discontinued.

6. It is in this background that the petitioner was appointed as General Manager. The company contends that the petitioner possessed the requisite mix of experience, technical knowledge, and familiarity with the company’s global business standards necessary to stabilise operations and align the Indian entity with international corporate practices. It is further asserted that prior to appointing the petitioner, the company conducted enquiries to identify a suitable Indian candidate for the position, but none was found to meet the required qualifications and experience. On that basis, the petitioner’s appointment was finalised and the Employment Visa was obtained.

7. Subsequently, on 11.07.2018, the Respondent, Foreign Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) addressed an email to the company seeking details regarding the employment status of three former Indian employees, two of whom were part of the earlier senior management, and also sought information regarding foreign nationals employed by the company. The company responded on 26.07.2018 stating that the three former employees had resigne