Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1105 (KAR)

Alireza Asgharyan v. Union of India

2015-09-21

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the application for extension of visa for a period of six months instead of directing the petitioner to arrive on fresh visa. The petitioner is a citizen of Islamic Republic of Iran. He had arrived to India on a valid passport and the visa granted to him in that regard. He had joined the BDS course of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences by admitting himself to a college affiliated to the said University. Presently the visa issued to the petitioner has expired though the same had been extended up to 19.09.2015. It is in that view the petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to issue a direction to the respondents to permit him to stay in this country and pursue his education. 2. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The respondents have contended that despite the petitioner having joined the course in the year 2012 and his visa being extended for the last time from 30.09.2014 to 19.09.2015, the petitioner has neither shown progress in his studies nor has shown inclination to complete the course in the scheduled period. As such it is contended that the petitioner is using the course as a ruse to continue in this country. Hence, it is the case of the respondents that in the matter of the present nature, the request as made by the petitioner cannot be considered and if the petitioner is interested to pursue the course, the only option open to the petitioner is to go back to his country and return after the fresh visa is issued to him. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in addition to the contention put forth, in support of the contention has filed a memo dated 21.09.2015 enclosing thereto the endorsement issued by the Bangalore Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital dated 21.09.2015 wherein it is indicated that the petitioner has appeared for the first year BDS Examinations held in July 2015 and the results are awaited. It is indicated therein that if the petitioner does not clear the subjects, he would have to appear for the supplementary exams which would be scheduled during December 2015. 4. It is indicated therein that if the petitioner does not clear the subjects, he would have to appear for the supplementary exams which would be scheduled during December 2015. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents has filed a memo dated 21.09.2015 enclosing thereto the request letter made by the petitioner while seeking extension of the visa period at the earlier point along with the application dated 16.07.2015. The extension as granted up to 19.09.2015 is also pointed out to indicate that the same had been issued to him on 17.07.2015 and as such the petitioner had sufficient time and advance notice with regard to the date on which the visa would expire and therefore, the petitioner cannot make out any grievance at this juncture. 5. In the light of the above, having taken note of the contentions put forth in the petition as well as the objection statement and also the documents relied on, in a matter where a citizen of another country is permitted to come to this country based on the visa that would be issued to him/her and in the instant case, when there is material on record to indicate that the visa which had been issued to the petitioner had expired and the extension was also granted with a specific date being indicated, the certificate as relied upon by the petitioner dated 21.09.2015 would not be of assistance. I am of the said opinion for the reason that even if this certificate is kept in view, it only indicates that the petitioner has appeared for the examination of the first year BDS course and he will have to remain in this country up to December 2015 awaiting the result alone would not be the criteria since if the petitioner is required to complete the course, he would require few more years and such action of the petitioner to pursue the course can only be in accordance with law after obtaining appropriate visa in the manner that it is required to be obtained and not by overstaying based on Court orders, when the competent authorities have considered these aspects. Therefore, by an extension to be directed by this Court the statutory functions of the respondents cannot be regulated in a writ petition when a foreign national is before this Court seeking for such relief. Therefore, by an extension to be directed by this Court the statutory functions of the respondents cannot be regulated in a writ petition when a foreign national is before this Court seeking for such relief. In that view, I see no reason to grant the relief sought in this petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply for a fresh visa in accordance with law.