ORDER : 1. The action of the 3rd Respondent – Inspector of Police, Pakistan Branch in repeatedly visiting his residence, compelling him to apply for Long Term Visa (LTV) and threatening initiation of prosecution without issuance of any notice is challenged by petitioner on the ground that it is violative of Articles 5, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Petitioner therefore seeks a consequential direction to Respondents 2 and 3 not to harass him, not to force him to apply for LTV and not to interfere with his marital life and family affairs. 2. Petitioner asserts that he was born in Hyderabad, has been residing in Hyderabad continuously for the last 31 years, is married to an Indian citizen and is leading a settled marital life along with his wife and children in Hyderabad. He claims that he is an Indian citizen by birth and that at no point of time, since 1994, he was not issued any notice by respondents requiring him to apply for LTV. 2.1. It is stated, petitioner’s mother was born at Hyderabad on 19.08.1969 and married a Pakistani citizen, namely Syed Abid Hussain, on 09.07.1991 at Hyderabad. It is stated that parents of petitioner’s mother obtained Indian passports on 19.06.1989 from the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad. After marriage, petitioner’s mother went to Pakistan along with her husband in 1991 and resided at Karachi. During her stay in Pakistan, she was allegedly subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband, who forcibly took away her original Indian passport, procured a Pakistani passport for her, and sent her to India for delivery. Petitioner states that he was born in India on 17.07.1992 and that his mother returned to Pakistan after the delivery. 2.2. It is stated, when petitioner’s mother became pregnant for the second time, her husband divorced her and forcibly sent her to India in 1994, from which time she has been continuously residing in India. In 1994, the 3rd Respondent treated his mother as a Pakistani national and, on the basis of the Pakistani passport, issued a residential permit on 08.03.1994. On the basis of periodical extensions of the said residential permit, petitioner’s mother continued to stay in Hyderabad. After obtaining divorce from her husband, she contracted a second marriage with one Syed Mujahid Hussain on 06.07.2001 and was blessed with one son, and thereafter, continued to reside in Hyderabad. On the basis of periodical extensions of the said residential permit, petitioner’s mother continued to stay in Hyderabad. After obtaining divorce from her husband, she contracted a second marriage with one Syed Mujahid Hussain on 06.07.2001 and was blessed with one son, and thereafter, continued to reside in Hyderabad. Petitioner specifically asserts that his mother never relinquished her Indian citizenship at any point of time. 2.3. Despite being aware that petitioner’s mother was born in India, the 3 rd Respondent issued notice dated 20.02.2013 directing her to relinquish her Pakistani passport, failing which she would be prosecuted under Paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1946 and Section 14F(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1948. Another notice dated 27.08.2013 was also issued to her. Petitioner’s mother therefore, filed Writ Petition No.27342 of 2013 and obtained interim order and the said Writ Petition is still pending adjudication. While so, petitioner alleges that the 3rd Respondent has been repeatedly visiting his residence without issuing any notice and compelling him to apply for LTV. 2.4. It is stated, petitioner is presently aged about 33 years, he pursued his schooling at Izam Sajjadi (Canada) Boys High School, Yakathpura, Hyderabad, from LKG to 9th Class during 1999-2009, completed 10th Class from St. Himayath High School, Azampura, Hyderabad, studied Intermediate at St. Dominos Junior College, Asmanghad, Malakpet, and thereafter discontinued his Intermediate course. He further states that he worked at Mahendra Company and VVC Motors Pvt. Ltd. He married an Indian woman, Mirja Fathima, in 2017, and they were blessed with two children, namely Syed Abbas Hussain Razvi, born on 28.07.2019, and Syed Ghaji Hussain Razvi, born on 16.08.2021, both of whom are residing with him in Hyderabad. 2.5. Petitioner’s grievance is that without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, respondents started compelling him to apply for LTV after a lapse of nearly 30 years. He never applied for any passport earlier and has been residing in India since he was about one year old. According to petitioner, the act of compelling him to apply for LTV without issuance of notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. He never applied for any passport earlier and has been residing in India since he was about one year old. According to petitioner, the act of compelling him to apply for LTV without issuance of notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The 3 rd respondent filed counter-affidavit and written instructions, based on which, learned Government Pleaded for Home submits that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Hyderabad issued a Memorandum dated 04.06.2025, addressed to the Inspector of Police, Pakistan Branch, Special Branch, Hyderabad which recorded that Pakistani nationals Smt. Gohar Fatima and her minor son Imran Abid @ Imran Hussain (year of birth 1991), whose name was included in her Pakistani passport bearing No. AB604771 dated 03.01.1994, valid up to 02.01.1999, arrived in India on 23.02.1994 on a visit visa, thereafter came to Hyderabad, and reported before the Foreigners Regional Office, Hyderabad on 08.03.1994. It was noted that since her arrival, she had been residing at H.No.17-3-484/9, Yakathpura, Bada Bazar, Hyderabad, along with her son. It is further stated that Smt. Gohar Fatima applied for LTV extensions only for herself up to 2014 to stay within the limits of Hyderabad with her Indian national parents. It was also recorded that she was granted LTV under category (iii) of the Visa Manual, 2019, by the Government, up to 01.01.2004, corresponding to the validity of her Pakistani passport bearing No. F816790 dated 03.03.1999 issued at New Delhi, valid up to 02.03.2004. Subsequently, she filed Writ Petition No.27342 of 2013 seeking extension of her LTV. The Memorandum specifically recorded that her son, Mr. Imran Abid @ Imran Hussain, a Pakistani national, was staying at the said address along with his mother without any valid documents or Long Term Visa. 3.1. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the Deputy Commissioner of Police directed the 3 rd respondent to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit a detailed report along with specific remarks within two days. In compliance with the said instructions, the 3 rd respondent conducted an enquiry wherein it was revealed that Smt. Gohar Fatima is an Indian-origin Pakistani national who was born at Hyderabad, India, on 19.08.1969; she married a Pakistani national, Mr. Syed Abid Hussain, at Hyderabad and thereafter, went to Pakistan along with her husband and obtained a Pakistani passport. In compliance with the said instructions, the 3 rd respondent conducted an enquiry wherein it was revealed that Smt. Gohar Fatima is an Indian-origin Pakistani national who was born at Hyderabad, India, on 19.08.1969; she married a Pakistani national, Mr. Syed Abid Hussain, at Hyderabad and thereafter, went to Pakistan along with her husband and obtained a Pakistani passport. During subsistence of their marriage, she gave birth to a male child in 1991 at Karachi, Pakistan, named Master Imran Abid, however, due to matrimonial disputes, and while she was pregnant with her second child, she left her husband and returned to Hyderabad along with her son, whose name was included in her Pakistani passport bearing No. AB604771 dated 03.01.1994 issued at Karachi, valid up to 02.01.1999, and she reported her arrival before the office concerned on 08.03.1994. 3.2. It is further submitted that she delivered another male child at Hyderabad on 26.05.1994, the child being conceived through her Pakistani national husband. She obtained Qula from her Pakistani national husband on 25.04.1995 and sent the Qula Nama to him at Pakistan. Thereafter, she remarried an Indian national, Mr. Syed Mujahid Hussain, on 06.07.2001 at Hyderabad. During her wedlock with her second husband, she was blessed with one male child and thereafter, she started residing along with her Indian national husband and children at H.No.17-3-472, Bada Bazar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. Smt. Gohar Fatima was granted extension of stay up to 01.01.2004, which was two months less than the validity of her Pakistani passport bearing No. F816790 dated 03.03.1999 issued at New Delhi, valid up to 02.03.2004, by the Government through P.O. No.18 dated 22.01.2003. Thereafter, she applied for further LTV extensions for the periods from 02.01.2004 to 01.01.2006, 02.01.2006 to 01.01.2008, 02.01.2008 to 01.01.2010, 02.01.2010 to 01.01.2012, and 02.01.2012 to 01.01.2014. All these Applications were forwarded to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and are stated to be under consideration due to non- renewal of her Pakistani passport. She was granted permission to travel New Delhi for renewal of her Pakistani passport; however, she failed to renew the same. Consequently, she filed Writ Petition No.27342 of 2013 seeking a direction not to deport her to Pakistan and also requesting grant of Indian citizenship. The status of the said writ petition is stated to be pending, with the next date of hearing posted on 26.09.2025. 3.3. Consequently, she filed Writ Petition No.27342 of 2013 seeking a direction not to deport her to Pakistan and also requesting grant of Indian citizenship. The status of the said writ petition is stated to be pending, with the next date of hearing posted on 26.09.2025. 3.3. Learned Government Pleader further submits that while Smt. Gohar Fatima had been applying for LTV extensions for herself, she failed to apply in respect of her Pakistani national son, Imran Abid @ Imran Hussain, who arrived India along with her and whose name was included in her Pakistani passport. It is further submitted, in 2018, petitioner married an Indian national, Mrs. Mirza Zehra Fatima, at Hyderabad. She is a native of Maharashtra and during their wedlock, they were blessed with two male children who are Indian nationals. 3.4. It is finally submitted, as per Government of India Order No.25022/28/2025-F.1, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners-I Division, New Delhi, dated 28.04.2025, all Pakistani nationals holding Long Term Visas and who have not obtained Indian citizenship are required to apply afresh for Long Term Visas in the prescribed Application form. In compliance with the said order, both petitioner and his mother applied for re-application of LTVs in July 2025. In petitioner’s re- application, his name was mentioned as Syed Ali Hussain Razvi (Imran), however, in Pakistani passport of petitioner’s mother, his name was recorded as Imran Abid and his year of birth as 1991. In the re-application and in the school records of petitioner’s children, his name is mentioned as Syed Ali Hussain Razvi, thereby indicating discrepancies in identity particulars. 3.5. Despite repeated visits by the officials of the 3 rd respondent to the registered residence for the purpose of regularizing the LTV of the petitioner’s mother and for informing petitioner to apply for LTV, both the Pakistani national mother and her son were not willing to apply for further LTVs as required under the applicable rules and Government orders, laments learned Government Pleader. The 3rd respondent addressed letters to the Government authorities concerned seeking verification and enquiry into the genuineness and issuance of the said documents. 3.6. It is further submitted, on 09.10.2025 at about 3:24 p.m., the staff of the 3rd respondent visited petitioner’s house, at which time, some female persons were found present in the house, but the petitioner was not found. 3.6. It is further submitted, on 09.10.2025 at about 3:24 p.m., the staff of the 3rd respondent visited petitioner’s house, at which time, some female persons were found present in the house, but the petitioner was not found. When the inmates were questioned about the petitioner’s whereabouts, they did not disclose any information. Hence, learned Government Pleader seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Heard Smt.G. Uma Rani, who reiterates the contents of the writ affidavit. 5. From a perusal of the material on record, it is to be seen, petitioner’s claim of Indian citizenship by birth is disputed on the basis of official records relied upon by respondents, which indicate that petitioner was recorded as a Pakistani national born in 1991 at Karachi, Pakistan, whose name was included in a Pakistani passport and who has never been granted any LTV or citizenship status. He has not produced any conclusive statutory proof of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, such as a certificate of registration, naturalization, or a valid Indian passport. The reliance placed by petitioner on Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, PAN Card, Driving Licence and educational certificates cannot, by themselves, confer or establish citizenship, particularly when the statutory framework governing foreigners mandates determination of nationality based on passport, visa status, and orders passed by competent authorities under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The counter affidavit discloses that verification has been initiated with the concerned authorities regarding such documents, which cannot be construed as illegal or arbitrary. 6. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is also not substantiated, inasmuch as the actions complained of are part of an ongoing statutory verification and compliance process initiated pursuant to Memorandum No. SB(I) No.136/F9/HYD/1994-2025/1929 dated 04.06.2025 and Government of India Order No.25022/28/2025-F.1 dated 28.04.2025 which mandates that all the Pakistani nationals, holding LTVs. and not obtained an Indian citizenship, shall apply afresh LTVs application form. It is stated, petitioner and his mother both applied for LTVs. in July, 2025. The visits by officials, in the facts pleaded by the respondents, were for ensuring compliance with visa regulations applicable to Pakistani nationals and cannot be equated with coercive or punitive action without due process. 7. It is also to be noted, petitioner’s mother’s status itself is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 27342 of 2013, which is pending adjudication. The visits by officials, in the facts pleaded by the respondents, were for ensuring compliance with visa regulations applicable to Pakistani nationals and cannot be equated with coercive or punitive action without due process. 7. It is also to be noted, petitioner’s mother’s status itself is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 27342 of 2013, which is pending adjudication. In such circumstances, petitioner, whose status is derivative and disputed, cannot seek a blanket declaration restraining the statutory authorities from performing their duties under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners Order, 1946, and the Visa Manual, 2019. Furthermore, as per petitioner’s re-application and his children school records, his name was mentioned as Syed Ali Hussain Razvi (Imran), whereas as per his mother Pakistani passports, his name was mentioned as Imran Abid and the year of birth as 1991. It shows that there are discrepancies in the identity particulars. In those circumstances, the relief sought, if granted, would effectively preclude the respondents from enforcing statutory mandates. The allegation that no notice was ever issued to petitioner for the last 30 years cannot override the statutory obligation cast upon the authorities to act when discrepancies or violations come to light, particularly in the context of fresh Government Orders such as No.25022/28/2025-F.1 dated 28.04.2025. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner has not made out any case. However, since it is stated in the counter as well as in the written instructions filed by the 3 rd respondent, that as per the Government Order dated 28.04.2025 all the Pakistani nationals holding LTVs and not obtained an Indian citizenship shall apply afresh for LTVs and both petitioner and his mother applied for LTVs in July 2025, respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the guidelines issued in that regard, as early as possible. 9. With the said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.