IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53970 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MR.DIWAKAR SHARMA S/O.TRIVENI SHYAM SHARMA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.203, BLOCK C RELIABLE ACACIA APARTMENT IBLUR, BANGALORE-560 102 2. MRS.MARIE NADAL SHARMA W/O.MR.DIWAKAR SHARMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT 38 RUE DES HAIES PARIS, LLE DE FRANCE … PETITIONERS (BY SRI AMIT A.MANDGI, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 001 2. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER EAST BLOCK-VIII LEVEL V, SECTOR-1 R.K.PURAM DELHI-110 066 3. ASSISTANT FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 068 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.R.DODAWAD, CGC) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO PERMIT THE SECOND PETITIONER TO ENTER INDIA AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN “B” GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None appeared for the petitioners.
Sri S.R.Dodawad, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Perused the records.
3. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seek for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the second petitioner as well as a writ of certiorari for quashing the Impugned Entry Refusal Form dated 07.09.2013 and notice under para 6 of the Foreigners Order 1948 dated 07.09.2013 issued by respondent No.3 against the second petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners had entered India in an employment visa and was found engaged in the business. Thereupon, on account of violation of the visa conditions, petitioner No.2 was blacklisted and the exit entry was issued. Therefore, the action taken by the respondents has to be justified.
In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into account the fact that the petitioners have violated the conditions imposed in the visa, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, in the result, I do not find any ground to continue with this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE LB