Wu Jyun Lin vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office Through Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Police

CNR No : HCBM020082232026

bdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.8223 OF 2026
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.23721 OF 2026
Wu Jyun Lin, ]
Age : 34 years, Occ.: Student, ]
Passport No.369080006, ]
Republic of China (Taiwan), ]
Presently residing at Ambewadi, ]
Khar (East), Mumbai 400 055. ] .. Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
1. Foreigners Regional Registration Office, ]
(Bureau of Immigration), ]
Through Deputy Commissioner of Police,]
Mumbai 400 001. ]
]
2. Ministry of Home Affairs, ]
Through Joint Secretary (Foreigners), ]
Foreigners Division, New Delhi 110 001. ]
]
3. Ministry of External Affairs, ]
Through its Secretary, ]
New Delhi 110 011. ]
]
4. Union of India, ]
Ministry of Law and Justice, ]
Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020. ] .. Respondents
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Prithviraj S. Gole, Advocate
for the Petitioner/Applicant.
1/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

Ms. Leena Patil with Mr. Rahul Tiwari and Ms. Akanksha A. Mishra,
Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP f or Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
TH
RESERVED ON: 20 JULY, 2026.
TH
PRONOUNCED ON : 28 JULY, 2026.
JUDGMENT : { Per Gautam A. Ankhad, J. }
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
st
2. The Petition, inter alia, challenges the Exit Permit dated 21
February, 2026 issued by Respondent No.1 directing the Petitioner, a
Taiwanese national, to depart from India.
3. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are briefly stated
as follows:
(i) The Petitioner was granted an Employment (E-2) Visa
bearing No. VK 8486265 by the Indian embassy at
2/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

Taiwan for taking up employment with Maxxis Rubber
India Private Limited, Gujarat. The Employment Visa
was initially issued for one year and was thereafter
extended from time to time. The last extension
th
remained valid until 12 November, 2025. The Visa
stipulated as follows:
“NOT VALID FOR PROHIBITED/
RESTRICTED CANTONMENT AREAS.
REGISTRATION WITHIN 14 DAYS OF
ARRIVAL IN INDIA
CHANGE OF PURPOSE NOT
ALLOWED”.
(ii) While continuing his employment with Maxxis Rubber
India Private Limited, the Petitioner pursued the
following academic courses: (a) Online Certification
course in Human Resources conducted by IIM Shillong
st th
for the period from 1 January, 2023 to 30 December,
2023; and (b) Online Master of Business Law course
conducted by the National Law School of India
University for academic period 2023-25.
(iii) The Petitioner applied for and was granted Equivalence
st
Certification on 21 August, 2023 and a Higher
3/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

th
Secondary Certificate on 10 October, 2023. The said
Certificates confer academic equivalence for purposes
of higher education in India.
(iv) In August, 2024 the Petitioner appeared in the State
Common Entrance Test for securing admission at
Government Law College, Mumbai in the three years
th
LL.B. programme. On 19 September, 2024, the
Petitioner’s admission was confirmed by the State
CET.
st
(v) On 1 May, 2025, the Petitioner tendered his
resignation from employment and was relieved from
st
service with effect from 1 July, 2025.
th
(vi) On 10 July, 2025, the Admissions Regulatory
Authority approved the Petitioner’s admission for
Academic Year 2024-25 for the Three Years LL.B.
course at Government Law College, Mumbai.
th
(vii) On 17 July, 2025, the Petitioner returned to Taiwan
upon his decision not to continue employment in India.
(viii) The Petitioner applied for a Student Visa before the
Indian Embassy in Taiwan. Upon completion of the
4/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

th
prescribed formalities, on 14 August, 2025, the Indian
Embassy at Taiwan issued a Student Visa valid until
th
13 August, 2028, Government Law College, Mumbai.
The Visa prescribed the following conditions:
“GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI.
4 ENTRIES PER ACADEMIC YEAR.
REGISTRATION WITHIN 14 DAYS OF ARRIVAL IN
INDIA. NOT VALID FOR PROHIBITED/
RESTRICTED AND CANTONMENT AREAS. NO
WORK/BUSINESS.
CHANGE OF PURPOSE NOT ALLOWED”
th
(ix) On 20 August, 2025 the Petitioner arrived in India
st
under the Student Visa. On 1 September, 2025, the
Petitioner submitted an online Application for issuance
of a Registration Certificate on the portal maintained
by Respondent No.1 along with the requisite
documents. As no decision was taken on the
Application, the Petitioner addressed several emails
th th
between 5 October, 2025 and 27 November, 2025
requesting Respondent No.1 to process his Application.
th
(x) On 16 December, 2025, the Petitioner was informed
that he was liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The
5/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

demand was reflected on the online portal maintained
by Respondent No.1. The Petitioner was informed by a
one-line email that his request for a Registration
Certificate had been closed. No reasons were assigned
for the closure of the Petitioner’s request for issuance
of Registration Certificate.
th
(xi) On 20 December 2025, the Petitioner disputed the
levy of penalty, asserting that his Application for
registration had been submitted within the statutory
period of fourteen days.
th
(xii) On 6 January, 2026, Respondent No.1 informed the
Petitioner that the penalty could not be waived and
directed him to remit the amount. The Petitioner
th nd
submitted representations on 8 January, 2026, 22
th
January, 2026 and 12 February, 2026 requesting
reconsideration of the decision. However, no relief was
st
granted and on 21 February, 2026, Respondent No.1
issued the impugned Exit Permit directing the
Petitioner to leave India within the period stipulated
therein. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has instituted
the present proceedings.
6/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

4. Mr. Mihir Desai, learned senior advocate appearing for the
Petitioner submits that the impugned Exit Permit is arbitrary, illegal and
results in an unwarranted curtailment of the Petitioner's right to pursue
education in India despite his holding a valid Student Visa. He contends
that the Petitioner after securing admission at the Government Law
College, Mumbai, was working through on-line mode so that he could
pursue his education. The Petitioner had duly submitted his Application
st
for issuance of a Registration Certificate on 1 September, 2025, well
within the period prescribed under Rule 6 of the Registration of
Foreigners Rules, 1992. Consequently, there was no occasion to impose
any penalty for delayed registration. It is further submitted that the
Petitioner has complied with all the requirements prescribed for grant of
a Student Visa and no longer intends to undertake employment in India.
It is contended that the failure of Respondent No.1 to issue a Registration
Certificate, coupled with the issuance of the Exit Permit, prejudices the
Petitioner's ability to return to India on a valid Student Visa and would
adversely affect his education. The impugned action is arbitrary and
liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, Ms. Leena Patil, learned counsel appearing for
7/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

th
Respondent No.1, relying upon the affidavits dated 15 May, 2026 and
nd
2 April, 2026 filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, submits that under
Section 7(2)(f) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, every
foreign national is required to strictly adhere to the purpose and
conditions of the Visa granted and cannot deviate therefrom without
prior approval of the Competent Authority. It is contended that the
Petitioner's Employment Visa prohibited any change in its purpose. The
Petitioner while holding the Employment Visa could not pursue
academic programmes without either obtaining prior permission from or
even intimating Respondent No.1. Such conduct constitutes a
fundamental breach of the conditions of the Employment Visa. Hence,
the Registration Certificate has been refused. The Petitioner has violated
the conditions governing his stay in India and is consequently liable for
action under Sections 23 to 25 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act,
2025. It is accordingly submitted that the issuance of the Exit Permit is
within the regulatory framework and warrants no interference in the
exercise of writ jurisdiction. In support of these submissions, reliance is
placed upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High
Court in Kasha Elizabeth Vande vs. Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.,
2018 SCC OnLine Del 9920.
8/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

6. We are unable to accept the Respondent’s contention that
the Exit Permit was justified as the Petitioner violated the conditions of
his earlier Employment Visa by pursuing educational courses while
employed in India. The Employment Visa stipulated only two conditions,
(i) that it was not valid for prohibited/restricted/cantonment areas; and
(ii) that FRRO registration was required within fourteen days of arrival
st
in India. The Petitioner was in employment till 1 July, 2025 and simul-
taneously pursued online academic programmes. There is no prohibition
in the conditions of Employment Visa from doing so. After resigning
from employment and whilst studying at the Government Law College,
the Petitioner left India and returned to Taiwan. The Petitioner applied
afresh for a Student Visa before the Indian Embassy in Taiwan. Upon
due verification, the competent authorities granted him a Student Visa
th
valid till 13 August, 2028.
7. The reliance placed by the Respondents on Section 7(2)(f)
of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 is misplaced. Section 6 of
the Act provides for registration of foreigners upon their arrival in India
with Respondent No.1. Section 7 of the Act provides for powers to issue
orders, directions or instructions for prohibiting, regulating or restricting
the entry of foreigners into India or their departure. Section 7(2)(f)
9/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

obligates a foreign national to comply with conditions of the Visa. The
material on record does not establish any breach of the express
conditions contained in the Employment Visa. The Petitioner is not
involved in any criminal investigations nor are any proceedings filed
against him by any authorities. The Indian Embassy at Taiwan is
presumed to be aware that the Petitioner had already begun studying at
the Government Law College, under the Employment Visa.
Nevertheless it granted the Student Visa to the Petitioner. The Student
Visa now issued specifically prohibits employment or business
activities. It is not the Respondents' case that after entering India on the
Student Visa the Petitioner has engaged in any employment or otherwise
breached any condition of the Student Visa. Therefore, if the Petitioner is
directed to leave India, it would seriously disrupt his education.
8. The Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 (now
superseded) require registration within fourteen days of arrival. The
th
Petitioner arrived in India on 20 August 2025 and submitted his online
st
application on 1 September, 2025, which is within the prescribed
period. There is no delay on the Petitioner’s part and hence the question
of imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- does not arise. The Petitioner's
request is closed without assigning any reasons and he was called upon
10/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

to pay a penalty again without assigning any reasons. There is no
response to any of the Petitioner’s representations. Thereafter, the
impugned Exit Permit came to be issued without even considering the
Petitioner's explanation. Such actions, in the present peculiar facts, are
arbitrary and cannot be sustained.
9. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High
Court in Kasha Elizabeth Vande (supra) does not advance the
Respondents' case. In that case, the Petitioner therein was blacklisted for
visa violation for being involved in NGO activities in Puducherry while
holding a business visa. The Petitioner had made incorrect statements in
her visa application including the name of her employer and had
over-stayed in India beyond the permissible limit in violation of the visa
conditions. The facts are distinguishable. In the present case, the
Petitioner resigned from employment, departed from India, obtained a
fresh Student Visa through the prescribed procedure and thereafter
entered India for pursuing his studies. The Indian Embassy which had
earlier granted him an employment visa, had itself verified his
application for a student’s visa, which was granted and on the basis of
which, he lawfully entered India. The ratio of the said decision is
inapplicable in the present facts.
11/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read as under:
“a) By an appropriate order and/or writ and/or
directions of this Hon’ble Court, Respondent No.1 be
directed forthwith process and grant the Registration
Certificate to the Petitioner pursuant to his
application dated 01/09/2025 (annexed to the present
Writ Petiton at Exh.’J’ ) in accordance with law;
b) By an appropriate order and/or writ and/or
directions of this Hon’ble Court, the impugned Exit
Permit dated 21/02/2026 (annexed to the present Writ
Petition at Exh. ‘U’ ) issued by Respondent No.1
directing the Petitioner to compulsorily depart from
India be quashed and set aside;”
In view of the above, pending Interim Application does not
survive and the same is disposed off .
11. Respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of this
order after examining the relevant documents. Pending such
consideration, the Petitioner shall be permitted to remain in India and
continue his studies in terms of the Student Visa issued to him. It is
clarified that the Petitioner shall strictly abide by all the conditions of the
Student Visa and shall not undertake any other activity or employment or
12/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34

business during its validity.
12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2026.07.28
14:23:29 +0530
13/13
909-IA(L)-23721-2026(2).odt
Uploaded on - 31/07/2026 Downloaded on - 01/08/2026 14:53:34
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)