Judgment : A.P. SHAH, J. The appellants are husband and wife. They are British citizens.They applied to the High Commission of India at London for a Tourist Visa and were granted Multiple Entry Tourist Visa valid for the period from 24.10.2002 to 23.4.2003. Again, they applied for a Multiple Entry Visa and were granted the visa for the period fro 4.3.2003 to 3.9.2003. Thereafter, the appellants applied for business Visa at the Indian High Commission, London and were granted Multiple Entry X- visa for the period from 25.7.2003 to 24.1.2004. The Visa granted to the appellants expired on 24.1.2004 and therefore, the appellants filed applications for extension of stay as per the foreigners‘ Rule 1946, by submitting necessary applications to the Foreigners‘ Registration Office. The appellants made applications for further extension of their stay in India for the period from 25.1.2005 to 24.1.2006 Again, further extension was sought from 25.1.2005 to 24.1.2007 Ultimately, applications made by the appellants were rejected by the Government of Indiavide order dated 11.9.2006. It appears that the order of rejection was not served on the appellants. But, the State Government has passed an order in (Ms) No.1009 dated 20.9.2006, directing deportation of both appellants. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed two separate writ petitions in W.P.No. 37192 and 37193 of 2006 respectively. The learned single Judge by order dated 29.9.2006, dismissed both the petitions and granted four weeks time to leave India. Hence, the present appeals. 2. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Hasan Ali Raihany v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 705 submitted that the appellants cannot be thrown out of the country without informing the reasons for rejection of their Visa applications and expulsion from the Country. The learned counsel submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the fact that the appellants have entered this Country legally upon the Multi Entry permits issued in their favour, it is only fair that the competent authority must inform the reasons for their deportation. If such a decision is taken, the appellants must be given opportunity to submit their representation against their proposed expulsion. The competent authority may thereafter consider their representation and pass appropriate orders. 3. If such a decision is taken, the appellants must be given opportunity to submit their representation against their proposed expulsion. The competent authority may thereafter consider their representation and pass appropriate orders. 3. On the other hand, V.T Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that Foreigners Act confers absolute power on the Central Government to expel foreigners from India. The applications submitted by the appellants were rejected by the Union of India and consequent on the rejection order, deportation was ordered. 4. In Hans Muller of Murenmurg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta AIR 1995 SC 367 : (1995) 1 SCR 1284, the Supreme Court has categorically held that the power of the Government in India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering this discretion. In a subsequent judgement in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1886 : (1991) 3 SCC 554 following the earlier judgement in Hans Muller the Court has held as follows: The next point taken on behalf of the petitioners, that the foreigners also enjoy some fundamental rights under the Constitution of this country, is also of not much help to them. The fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1) (e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country. It was held by the Constitution Bench in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta (1955) 1 SCR 1284 : AIR 1955 SC 367 , that the power of the Government in India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering this discretion. It was pointed out that the legal position on this aspect is not uniform in all the countries but so far the law which operates in India is concerned, the executive Government has unrestricted right to expel a foreigner. It was pointed out that the legal position on this aspect is not uniform in all the countries but so far the law which operates in India is concerned, the executive Government has unrestricted right to expel a foreigner. So far the right to be heard is concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the manner in which a person concerned has to be given an opportunity to place his case and it is not claimed that if the authority concerned has served a notice before passing the impugned order the petitioners could have produced some relevant material in support of their claim of acquisition of citizenship, which they failed to do in the absence of a notice. ( Emphasis supplied) 5. In the light of the provisions of the Foreigners Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the central Government has unfettered discretion to expel the foreigners. The decision in Hasan Ali Raihany v. Union of India ( cited supra), is distinguishable on facts. In that case, a residential permit was issued to the petitioner which has been extended from time to time and which stood extended till 3.12.2007. However, while deporting him, the authorities cancelled the residential permit. The Court held that having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner therein has entered this country legally upon the single entry permit issued to him, it is only fair that the competent authority must inform him the reason for deportation and if such a decision is taken, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to submit his representation against his proposed expulsion. In the present case, the business visa issued to the appellants expired on 24.1.2004 and the appellants were allowed to continue in this country only because their applications for multi Entry permit were pending before the 2nd respondent. Now the 2nd respondent has rejected the applications of the appellants for Visa. We do not find any infirmity in the order of deportation of the appellants. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. The appellants are given six weeks time to leave India. No costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.