JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. C. Collasso, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondents. 4. Upon extensively hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents with regard to the scope of interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India concerning the foreign national and without going into the rival contentions on merits, we propose to dispose of the above petition on a narrow compass. The petitioner who is a foreign national entered the country on a valid business visa and the respondents contend that she has committed a breach of the visa terms. In view of an action taken by the Tourism Department against the petitioner, the respondents by the impugned order dated 29.01.2016 directed the petitioner to leave the country on or before 05.02.2016. Though Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued to point out that there was a breach of the conditions of the visa and that in view of the fact that she has accepted the commissioning of an offence in terms of the G.D.D. Registration of Tourism Trade Act, 1982 ( in short “the said Act” ), the fact remains that before passing the impugned order, the FRRO respondent no.2 had not placed the material on which such action was contemplated before the petitioner. The allegations made against the petitioner are not grave to the extent that they affect the sovereignty of the country but the allegation is that as the petitioner was indulging in touting in breach of the provisions of the said Act, the respondents were entitled to pass the impugned order. 5. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2006) 3 SCC 705 in the case of Hasan Ali Raihany V/s Union of India and others, has observed at para 8 thus : “8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, having regard to the fact that the petitioner 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 reasons for his deportation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, having regard to the fact that the petitioner 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 reasons for his deportation. If such a decision is taken, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to submit his representation against his proposed expulsion. The competent authority may thereafter consider his representation and pass appropriate order. As observed by this Court, this procedure may be departed from for compelling reasons of national security, etc. In the instant case, we have not so far noticed any fact which may provide a compelling reason for the State not to observe this procedure.” In the present case, the record do not reveal any compelling reason for the State not to observe this procedure as the allegation is that the petitioner has committed a breach of the provisions of the said Act which was compounded and according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the effect of law therefrom would emerge. It is also not disputed that this exercise or opportunity was not given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Without going into the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents on merits, we propose to dispose of the above petition in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the said judgment in the case of Hasan Ali Raihany (supra). 6. Hence, we dispose of the above petition with a direction to the competent authority who is the FRRO, Panaji to communicate to the petitioner the reason why she was sought to be deported from this country. The reason should be sufficient enough to enable the petitioner to make an effective representation if she so desires to do so. The petitioner shall be given two weeks time from the date of receipt of such reasons to make a representation. Any order passed by such competent authority shall be communicated to the petitioner. We further direct to communicate the reason to the petitioner on the address as mentioned in the cause title of the above petition. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.01.2016 is quashed and set aside subject to the directions herein above. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. We further direct to communicate the reason to the petitioner on the address as mentioned in the cause title of the above petition. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.01.2016 is quashed and set aside subject to the directions herein above. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open.