IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.35056 of 2025

04^th DECEMBER, 2025 Between Anirudh Venkat Sai Ponnala … Petitioner AND

1. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Hyderabad, and others … Respondents

ORDER:

The petitioner, Anirudh Venkat Sai Ponnala, aged 29 years and a citizen of the United States of America residing temporarily at 302, Krishnaveni Acropolis, Plot Nos. 146 and 147, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad- 500033, states that he entered India on 31.12.2019 intending a temporary stay, but found himself compelled to remain in India and could not return to the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. The loss of his father in 2017 had already placed family responsibilities on him at a young age, and his mother, a single parent, required his support. He remained in India throughout this period, including to assist with his sister’s marriage, always relying on his valid visa, and to the best of his knowledge, complying with all requirements of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Bureau of Immigration. When international travel resumed in 2022 and he attempted to leave India, he was stopped at the airport by Respondent No. 2 during a routine immigration check and informed that because he had remained for more than 180 continuous days, he could not depart unless he first obtained an exit permit from Respondent No. 1, even though his 10-year visa did not stipulate any maximum stay limit of 180 days.

1.1 Acting immediately, the petitioner applied online for an exit permit via the e-FRRO portal under Application ID No. 0911225008IP dated 14.12.2022. This “1st Exit Permit Application,” submitted in full compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Ministry of External Affairs and Bureau of Immigration, was abruptly closed by Respondent No. 1 without any reason or communication. After several months of uncertainty, he again applied through the same portal, filing a second request under Application ID No. 300823R1IUIU dated 30.08.2023. In this “2nd Exit Permit Application,” he uploaded every required document and paid the prescribed fee of Rs.50,000/- via the SBI e-Gateway on 06.09.2023, acknowledged under Reference ID 0418630308637. Yet this second application also remained pending without explanation. On 27.09.2024, he sent a follow-up email to Respondents 1 and 2, confirming that the Rs. 50,000/- payment had been made, providing the reference ID, and requesting the status of the 2nd Exit Permit Application; this too elicited no response. Ultimately, he discovered that both applications had been marked “Closed” on the e-FRRO portal, with no notice, explanation, deficiency memo, or opportunity to correct any alleged shortcoming.

1.2 The petitioner states that Section 3(2) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 and Rule 5 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 allow refusal of permission to depart India only under specific circumstances—such as when a court requires a person’s presence, when they suffer from diseases dangerous to public health, when departure may harm relations with a foreign state, when the Central Government issues a specific order, or when an immigration officer reasonably believes that such departure is against public interest and subsequently reports it to the Central Government. Rule 15 of the Immigration and Foreigners Rules, 2025, he asserts, merely requires a foreigner to “inform” the Registration Officer when leaving India or changing addresses, and nowhere requires prior permission. He therefore states that he has fulfilled all legal requirements: he holds a valid passport and visa, he has no information that any authorized agency requires his presence in India, and he is unaware of any order that could justify preventing his departure.

1.3 The petitioner further states that a politically motivated case was filed against him in 2021. When he went to clear overgrown bushes and level family property in Sriram Nagar Ho