SHRI. ADBUL RAHIM vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026

R

CNR: KAHC010416612026








IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 19120 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. ADBUL RAHIM
S/O MOHD. SHAL JAMAL,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
HOUSED AT UTILE FOUNDATION,
KOTHANUR, BENGALURU - 560 077.
(HIM BEING IN THE DETENTION CENTRE IS
REPRESENTED BY HIS NEPHEW,
PETITIONER NO. 2)

2. SHRI. JAHIDUL ISLAM
S/O MUSTAFA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
NO. 1023, JHUGGI E,
43A D BLOCK,
70 FUTA ROAD,
NEW SEEMAPURI, JHILMIL,
EAST DELHI - 110095.
PRESENTLY IN BENGALURU AND
RESIDING AT NO. 60, SADHGURU
SAINATH SCHOOL ROAD
KUDLU, BOMMANAHALLLI,
BENGALURU 560068.

…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CLIFTON D ROZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR
MS. MAITREYI KRISHNAN.,ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

4. POLICE INSPECTOR,
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
POLICE STATION, 8, HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560030

5. FOREIGNERS REGIONAL
REGISTRATION OFFICER (FRRO)
FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE
5TH FLOOR, 'A, BLOCK,
TTMC BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING,
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH RD,
NGO COLONY, SHANTI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W
SRI. SHIVA REDDY V, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
MS. SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, CGC FOR R5)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
BEARING NO. FRRO/BOI/BLR/MRO/2026- 100 DATED
05.03.2026 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, FOREIGNERS

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE, BENGALURU, IMPOSING
RESTRICTIONS ON THE MOVEMENT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
UNDER SECTION 7(2)(F) OF THE FOREIGNERS ACT, 2025 READ
WITH PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE IMMIGRATION AND FOREIGNERS
ORDER, 2025 (PLACED AS ANNEXURE - A).

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

CAV ORDER

In the present writ petition, the petitioners assail the
1
Movement Restriction Order dated 05.03.2026 (Annexure-A to
the writ petition) passed under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
2
the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 and para 8 of the
3
Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 whereunder the first
4
petitioner has been ordered to be referred to the Utile
5
Foundation, Kothanur, Bengaluru under the Kothanur Police
Station limits with immediate effect. This Court vide interim
order dated 06.07.2026, restrained the respondents from
deporting the petitioner.

1
Hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order'
2
Hereinafter referred to as 'Foreigners Act, 2025'
3
Hereinafter referred to as 'Foreigners Order, 2025'
4
Hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner'
5
Hereinafter referred to as 'Foundation'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



Background Facts:

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the second petitioner
is the nephew of the first petitioner and that both the
petitioners are Indian citizens. The petitioner is stated to have
been born on 14.04.1979 at New Seemapuri, Delhi. That the
petitioner moved to Bengaluru in the year 2014 and is carrying
on 'Waste Management and Scrap Trading' activities through
his proprietorship concern 'AR Enterprises' bearing Udyam
registration No.UDYAM-KR-03-031027 and having its registered
office at No.170/4, Kudlu village, Madiwala, Bengaluru Urban-
560068. That the petitioner is married and is residing with his
wife Nazima and his infant child Abdul Rayyan who is aged 6
months. That the petitioner has the requisite identity
documents like Birth Certificate, Passport, Election Identity
6
Card, Aadhar Card, Permanent Account Number Card , Driving
Licence, and BBMP Identity Card.

3. That on 05.03.2026, the petitioner was picked up by the
Parappana Agrahara Police Station Officials pursuant to
instructions of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Electronic

6
Hereinafter referred to as 'PAN Card'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



City Division as part of a drive undertaken to identify illegal
Bangladeshi immigrants. That the petitioner was taken into
custody and informed that he was suspected to be a foreign
national and was handed over to the Foreigners Regional
7
Registration Office, Bangalore . That the petitioner repeatedly
asserted that he was an Indian citizen by birth and offered to
produce all documents in support of his citizenship and identity.
However, on the same day, i.e., on 05.03.2026 the respondent
No.5-FRRO, passed the impugned order dated 05.03.2026.
That in the said proceedings the petitioner was identified as,
"Md.Rahim Howladar, s/o Md.Motaleb Howladar." That

consequent to the impugned order dated 05.03.2026, the
petitioner is at the Foundation. That the impugned order
proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner is a foreign
national, despite the petitioner contending to the contrary.

4. That the petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under
Section 14-A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 in ST
No.1577/2010 before the Court of the Additional District and
8
Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh . That vide judgment

7
Hereinafter referred to as 'FRRO'
8
Hereinafter referred to as 'Sessions Court'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



dated 08.06.2012, the petitioner was convicted by the Sessions
Court on the allegation that he was a Bangladeshi National by
name "Abdul Rahim s/o Shah Jamal, resident of Bagerhat,
Bangladesh." That being aggrieved by the judgment dated
08.06.2012 passed by the Sessions Court, the petitioner
preferred Criminal Appeal No.2509/2012 before the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad and vide order dated 06.07.2012
passed in the said appeal, the appeal of the petitioner was
admitted and the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail.
That the appeal is pending consideration before the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad.

5. It is further contended that the petitioner was illegally
detained by the respondent - authorities and the petitioner
seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus filed WP (HC) No.40/2026
before this Court. That when the said Habeas Corpus petition
was listed before the Court, the impugned order dated
05.03.2026 was produced in the said proceedings. Accordingly,
the said WP (HC) No.40/2026 was disposed of vide order dated
17.04.2026, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



impugned order dated 05.03.2026. Accordingly, the present
writ petition is filed.

6. That the petitioner is the primary earning member of his
family, which includes his wife and child and that the petitioner
has been deprived of his liberty by virtue of the impugned order
dated 05.03.2026 and the same has prevented him from
earning his livelihood for himself and his family.

7. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit, on behalf
of respondent No.5 is filed. The said counter affidavit is sworn
to by the Assistant Director, Bureau of Immigration of the
respondent No.5.

8. In the said counter affidavit it is affirmed that the Birth
Certificate (Annexure - E to the writ petition) relied upon by the
petitioner to contend that he was born on 14.04.1979 at Guru
Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Delhi, is not a genuine
document, as when the respondents made enquiries regarding
the veracity of the said Birth Certificate, the report of the said
enquiry revealed that Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital
was established in December 1995 and there is no birth record
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



of Sri.Abdul Rahim s/o Mohd. Shah Jamal. That the enquiry
further revealed that there is no record of the Death Certificate
of the father of the petitioner at the Municipal Corporation of
9
Delhi and the registration number of the said certificate does
not exist. It is further sought to be placed on record that in WP
(HC) No.40/2026, the petitioner had produced a Birth
Certificate whereunder the date of birth were mentioned as
14.04.1979 and the date of registration was mentioned as
24.08.2001 and issued on 18.03.2026 respectively and bearing
registration number B202609903470063096, whereas in the
present petition, in the Birth Certificate although the date of
birth is mentioned as 14.04.1979, the date of registration is
mentioned as 27.09.2019, and the date of issuance as
31.03.2026 respectively, bearing registration number
B2026090143507. The copies of the said Birth Certificates are
produced as Exhibits R5 and R6 along with the said counter
affidavit.

9. Heard Sri. Clifton D Rozario learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General Sri.

9
Hereinafter referred to as 'MCD'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



Arvind Kamath appearing along with Smt. Swamini Ganesh
Mohanambal, learned Central Government Counsel, for the
respondent - authorities.

10. It is the vehement contention on behalf of the petitioner
that the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 is an arbitrary
action on the part of the official respondents and that the
liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed without the
petitioner having been afforded an adequate opportunity to put
forth his case. It is further contended that the petitioner having
been prosecuted in criminal proceedings under the provisions of
the Foreigners Act, 1946, and since adjudication of the same is
pending consideration in Criminal Appeal No.2509/2012 before
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the petitioner
having been granted bail in the said proceedings, the liberty of
the petitioner cannot be curtailed by the impugned order dated
05.03.2026. It is also contended that the impugned order is an
executive action by which the liberty of the petitioner granted
pursuant to a judicial order cannot be curtailed.

11. On behalf of the respondent - authorities, it is contended
that the petitioner, being a Bangladeshi National, the issuance
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



of the impugned order is just and proper. That having regard to
the fact that the petitioner is a Bangladeshi National, who is
claiming to be an Indian citizen by virtue of forged/fabricated
documents, the question of considering the various measures
as contemplated under Section 7 of the Foreigners Act 2025 for
the purpose of regulating/restricting the movement of the
petitioner, does not arise. That the writ petition of the
petitioner on its merits ought not to be considered in view of
the fact that the petitioner has produced
false/fabricated/contradictory material in the course of judicial
proceedings. Hence, it is contended that the writ petition of the
petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone.

12. The submissions of the parties were heard at length. Both
the learned counsels relied upon various judgments, which shall
be referred to during the course of this order to the extent that
the same are required for deciding the issue that arises for
consideration in the present writ petition.


Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



Statutory Provisions & Legal Position

13. Before considering the various contentions put forth by the
respective parties, it is relevant to notice the various statutory
stipulations.
10

14. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955
reads under:-
" 3. Citizenship by birth.―(1) Except as
provided in sub-section (2), every person born in
India―
(a) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, but
before the 1st day of July, 1987;

(b) on or after the 1st day of July, 1987, but
before the commencement of the
Citizenship(Amendment) Act, 2003 (6 of 2004)
and either of whose parents is a citizen of India at
the time of his birth;

(c) on or after the commencement of the
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 (6 of 2004),
where―

(i) both of his parents are citizens of India; or

(ii) one of whose parents is a citizen of India and
the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of
his birth, shall be a citizen of India by birth."


15. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act
stipulates the persons who shall be citizens of India. In the

10
Hereinafter referred to as 'Citizenship Act'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



present case, reliance is placed by the petitioner on Section
3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act to contend that the petitioner,
having been born in India after 26.01.1950 but before
01.07.1987 is a citizen of India by birth.

16. Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 reads as under:
" 3. Power to make orders.—
(1)The Central Government may by order make
provision, either generally or with respect to all
foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or
any prescribed class or description of foreigner, for
prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of
foreigners into [India] or their departure therefrom or
their presence or continued presence therein.

(2)In particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, orders made under this section
may provide that the foreigner—

(a) shall not enter [India] or shall enter [India] only at
such times and by such route and at such port or place
and subject to the observance of such conditions on
arrival as may be prescribed;

(b) shall not depart from [India], or shall depart only at
such times and by such route and from such port or
place and subject to the observance of such conditions
on departure as may be prescribed;

(c) shall not remain in [India] or in any prescribed areas
therein; [(cc) shall, if he has been required by order
under this section not to remain in India, meet from any
resources at his disposal the cost of his removal from
India and of his maintenance therein pending such
removal;]

Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



(d) shall remove himself to, and remain in, such area in
[India] as may be prescribed;

(e) shall comply with such conditions as may be
prescribed or specified—(i)requiring him to reside in a
particular place;(ii)imposing any restrictions on his
movements;(iii)requiring him to furnish such proof of his
identity and to report such particulars to such authority
in such manner and at such time and place as may be
prescribed or specified;(iv)requiring him to allow his
photograph and finger impressions to be taken and to
furnish specimens of his handwriting and signature to
such authority and at such time and place as may be
prescribed or specified;(v)requiring him to submit
himself to such medical examination by such authority
and at such time and place as may be prescribed or
specified;(vi)prohibiting him from association with
persons of a prescribed or specified
description;(vii)prohibiting him from engaging in
activities of a prescribed or specified
description;(viii)prohibiting him from using or
possessing prescribed or specified articles;(ix)otherwise
regulating his conduct in any such particular as may be
prescribed or specified;

(f) shall enter into a bond with or without sureties for
the due observance of, or as an alternative to the
enforcement of, any or all prescribed or specified
restrictions or conditions;[(g) shall be arrested and
detained or confined;]and may make provision [for any
matter which is to be or may be prescribed and] for
such incidental and supplementary matters as may, in
the opinion of the Central Government, be expedient or
necessary for giving effect to this Act.[(3) Any authority
prescribed in this behalf may with respect to any
particular foreigner make orders under clause (e) 5 [or
clause (f)] of sub-section (2).]"


17. The Foreigners Act, 1946 stipulates the provisions for entry
of foreigners into India, their presence in the country and their
departure therefrom. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 empowers
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



the Central Government to make any provision with respect to
prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry, departure or
their presence/continued presence in India. Sub-section (2) of
Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 prescribes the various
measures that could be stipulated by the Central Government
with respect to a foreigner.

18. The Foreigners Act, 2025 (Act No.13/2025) was published
in the Official Gazette on 04.04.2025. Sub-section (1) of
Section 36 of the Foreigners Act, 2025, repeals inter alia the
Foreigners Act, 1946. Section 7 of the Foreigners Act, 2025
empowers the Central Government to make orders/directions,
as also issue instructions with respect to prohibiting /
regulating / restricting the entry / continued presence or
departure of foreigners therefrom. The said Section 7 reads as
under:
" 7(1) The Central Government may, by an order
direction or instruction. make provisions, either
generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect
to any particular foreigner or any specified class or
description of foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating or
restricting the entry of foreigners into India or, their
departure therefrom or their presence or continued
presence therein.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, the orders or directions or
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



instructions issued under this section may provide that
the foreigner-

(a) shall not enter India, or shall enter India only at
such times and by such route and at such port or place
and subject to the observance of such conditions on
arrival as may be specified;

(b) shall not depart from India, or shall depart only at
such times and by such route and from such port or
place and subject to the observance of such conditions
on departure as may be specified;

(c) shall not remain in India or in any specified area
therein;

(d) shall, if he has been required by order or direction or
instruction under this section not to remain in India,
meet from any resources at his disposal the cost of his
removal from India and of his maintenance therein
pending such removal;

(e) shall remove himself to, and remain in, such area in
India as may be specified;

(f) shall comply with such conditions as may be
specified—
(i) requiring him to present himself for examination for
such information in such manner, at such time, as may
be required;

(ii) requiring him to reside in a particular place;

(iii) imposing any restrictions on his movements;

(iv) requiring him to furnish such proof of his identity
and to report such particulars to such authority in such
manner and at such time and place as may be specified;

(v) requiring him to allow his photograph and biometric
information, as may be specified, to be taken and to
furnish specimens of his handwriting and signature to
such authority and at such time and place as may be
specified;
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




(vi) requiring him to submit himself to such medical
examination by such authority and at such time and
place as may be specified;

(vii) prohibiting him from association with persons of a
specified description;

(viii) prohibiting him from engaging in activities of a
specified description;

(ix) prohibiting him from using or possessing specified
article;

(x) regulating his conduct in any such particular as may
be specified.


(3) In addition to the foregoing, the Central Government
may make provision for any matter which is to be or
may be specified and for such incidental and
supplementary matters as may be expedient or
necessary for giving effect to this Act.

(4) Any authority specified in this behalf may, with
respect to any particular foreigner, issue order or
direction or instruction under clause (f) of sub-section
(2)."


19. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 7 read
with Sections 3 and 11 of the Foreigners Act, 2025, the Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India, has issued the
Foreigners Order 2025, which was published in the Official
Gazette on 31.08.2025. The Foreigners Order, 2025 is issued in
supersession of, inter alia , the Foreigners Order, 1948, which
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



was issued under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Chapter II (paras 8 to 11) of the Foreigners Order, 2025,
stipulates the restrictions on certain activities / movement of a
foreigner. Para 8 of the Foreigners Order, 2025 reads as under:
"8. Power to impose restrictions. (1) The civil authority
or any authority as specified by the Central Government
in this behalf may, by order in writing, direct that any
foreigner shall comply with such conditions specified
therein regarding -

(a) his place of residence;

(b) his movements;

(c) his association with any person or class of persons
specified in the order;
and

(d) his possession of such articles as specified in rule 20
of the rules.

(2) Every State Government and Union territory
Administration shall set up dedicated holding centers or
camps for the purpose of restricting the movement of
foreigners, till they are deported."


20. Para 9 stipulates the restrictions that could be imposed on
the employment of a foreigner and para 10 stipulates the
restrictions that could be imposed on certain activities of a
foreigner.

21. It is a settled proposition of law that the rights under
Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which inter alia ,
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



recognises the right to move freely throughout India and the
right to reside and settle in every part of the Country are
available only to the citizens of India and not to foreigners.
However, the rights stipulated under Article 14 i.e., equal
protection of laws and the right to life and liberty in terms of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India are available to all
persons in India, including foreigners.

22. The Supreme Court in the case of Hasan Ali Raihany v.
11
Union of India and Others considered a writ petition filed
by a foreigner challenging an order of deportation passed
against him. In the said case, the question of procedural
fairness of a decision to deport a foreign national, who had
entered into the territory of India on a valid visa was
considered. In the said context, the Supreme Court held as
under:
"6 . The question that arises for consideration is
whether the authorities intend to deport him again and
if so, whether they are obliged to disclose to the
petitioner the reasons for his proposed deportation.
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

11
( 2006) 3 SCC 705
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



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.
9. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with
the directions to the competent authority, who we
are told is the Deputy Commissioner of Police and
FRRO, Mumbai, to communicate to the petitioner the
reasons why he is sought to be deported from this
country. The reasons disclosed must be sufficient to
enable the petitioner to make an effective
representation, if he wishes to do so. The petitioner
shall be given two weeks' time to make a
representation which shall be considered by the
competent authority as soon as possible. Any order
passed shall be communicated to the petitioner
forthwith. "

(emphasis supplied)


23. In the case of Sabitri Dey alias Swasti Dey and others
12
v. Union of India the Supreme Court was considering a
batch of appeals arising out of the proceedings before the
Foreigners' Tribunal in the State of Assam. While considering

12
Civil Appeal No. 2820/2024 along with connected matters vide judgment dated 13.07.2026.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



the various questions that arose therein, the Supreme Court
inter alia, held as under :
"20. It is necessary to lay emphasis on the language of
both uses the expression "no person". Neither
provision is expression "any person". Article 21 of the
Constitution confined to citizens. The protection of
equality before is, therefore, available to every person
within the law, equal protection of laws, life and
personal liberty territory of India. A person proceeded
against before a Foreigners Tribunal may ultimately fail
to establish Indian citizenship, but the process by
which such determination is made must still satisfy the
of fairness, constitutional requirements reasonableness
and non-arbitrariness.


21. This Court has consistently recognised that even a
foreigner is entitled to the protection of life and
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution .
In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India³, this Court
(1991) 3 SCC 554 held that the fundamental right of a
foreigner is available under Article 21 of the
Constitution for "life and liberty", although the right to
reside and settle in India under Article 19(1)(e) of the
Constitution is confined to citizens. This distinction is
important in the present case. The State may regulate
the entry, stay and removal of foreigners in
accordance with law, but the person concerned is not
placed outside the protection of fair procedure.


22. The same principle was reiterated in National
Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal
Pradesh, where this Court rejected the contention that
persons whose citizenship was disputed could be
denied constitutional protection. The Court observed
that foreigners are entitled to the protection of Article
21 of the Constitution. The constitutional guarantee of
life and personal liberty, therefore, operates even at
the stage where the status of the person is itself under
inquiry.

Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




23. The content of Article 21 of the Constitution was
thoroughly explained by this Court in Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of Indias. The Court held that the mere
prescription of some procedure does not satisfy Article
21 of the Constitution. The procedure must be
oppressive or arbitrary". This principle is directly "fair,
just and reasonable" and cannot be "fanciful,
determining whether a person is a foreigner. The fact
attracted where a statute creates a mechanism for
that the statute prescribes a special burden of proof
does not mean that the process can be unfair or
arbitrary.


24. Article 14 of the Constitution also upholds the
content of fair procedure. A State action which is
arbitrary cannot claim the protection of law merely
because it is clothed in statutory form. A proceeding
which may result in a person being declared a
foreigner cannot be sustained if the procedure adopted
is mechanical, one-sided, or devoid of application of
mind. Equal protection of laws requires that the
statutory procedure be applied in a real and
meaningful manner. It is not enough that a notice is
formally issued or that an order is formally passed.
The Tribunal must examine whether the proceedee had
a fair opportunity, whether the main grounds were
disclosed, whether the evidence before it was capable
of supporting the reference, and whether the
conclusion follows from the material on record.


25. The principle of audi alteram partem, which
literally means that the other side must be heard. is
one of the two great limbs of natural justice. It is often
expressed in the maxim that no person shall be
condemned unheard. Its moral foundation was
famously explained in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of
Works, where the Court emphasised that even where a
statute is silent, a person whose rights or interests are
likely to be affected must ordinarily be afforded an
opportunity of being heard. The principle is, therefore,
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



not a mere rule of technical procedure. It is a rule of
fair play in action.

xxxxxxxx
46. Citizenship and foreigner status occupy a field of
high constitutional and legal significance. Article 11 of the
Constitution preserves the power of Parliament to make
provisions with respect to the acquisition and termination
of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.
Separately, the 1946 Act and the 1964 Order provide the
statutory mechanism through which questions as to
whether a person is or is not a foreigner are referred to
and determined by the Tribunal. The State has a
legitimate and compelling interest in ensuring that
persons who are not legally entitled to claim Indian
citizenship do not secure such status by misuse of
process, by false claims, or by taking advantage of
procedural delays.

47. At the same time, the determination of such status
must be made through a process which is fair, lawful and
reasoned. The statutory burden under Section 9 of the
1946 Act remains fully applicable. The remand being
directed by this Court is not intended to dilute that
burden, nor is it intended to confer any equity in favour of
a person who is unable to establish his or her claim in
accordance with law. It is only to ensure that the serious
consequence of being declared a foreigner follows from an
adjudication which satisfies the requirements of the 1946
Act, the 1964 Order, and the constitutional mandate of
fairness."
(emphasis supplied)


24. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Obinna
Jeremiah Okafor Vs. Foreigners Regional Registration
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



13
Officer , considering an appeal filed by a Nigerian National
who was issued with a student visa to study in India and
against whom an impugned order was passed, which was
affirmed by a Single Judge of this Court. Considering the same,
this Court, inter alia held as under:
"33. In the present case, the visa issued to the
appellants was cancelled prior to its expiry. Undeniably,
the Movement Restriction order, does curtail the liberty
of the appellants. Thus, it was necessary to comply with
the minimum procedural fairness standards. The
appellants were required to be informed of the reasons
for the said order, and at the very least ought to have
been given an opportunity to submit their
representation."
(emphasis supplied)

Reasoning & Conclusion:
REG. DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER:

25. In this context, it is pertinent to note that while the
petitioner has produced his birth certificate with the date of
issue as 31.03.2026 (Annexure-E to the writ petition), it is the
contention on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had
produced a birth certificate with the date of issue as
18.03.2026 (Annexure-R5 to the counter affidavit of

13
WP No.1503/2025 - Order dated 27.01.2026
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



respondent No.5) along with WP.HC.No.40/2026. The relevant
details/particulars of the said birth certificates are as under :

Sl.No. Particulars Details as forthcoming
in the birth certificate
produced in WP HC
No.40/2026
Details as forthcoming
in the birth certificate
produced in the
present writ petition
(Annexure-E to the
writ petition)
1. Name Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahim
2. Date of Birth 14.04.1979 14.04.1979
3. Place of Birth Guru Gobind Singh
Government Hospital
Guru Gobind Singh
Government Hospital
4. Name of
Mother
Asneyara Begam Asneyara Begam
5. Name of Father Mohd Shal Jamal Mohd Shah Jamal
6. Address of
Parents at the
Time of Birth of
the Child
No. 495, Jhuggi, E-43,
New Seema Puri, Delhi -
110095.
No. 495, Jhuggi, E-43,
New Seema Puri, Delhi -
110095.
7. Permanent
Address of
Parents
No. 495, Jhuggi E-43,
New Seema Puri, Delhi -
110095.
No. 495, Jhuggi E-43,
New Seema Puri, Delhi -
110095.
8. Registration
Number
B202609903470063096 B2026090143507
9. Date of
Registration
24.08.2001 27.09.2019
10. Date of Issue 18.03.2026 31.03.2026

Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




26. It is further forthcoming that in support of the assertion on
behalf of the petitioner that he is a citizen of India, the
following documents are produced:
i) Passport (Annexure-E1 to the writ petition) bearing
No.S4301192 in the name of Abdul Rahim showing the
date of birth as 14.04.1979 and place of birth as
Seema Puri, Delhi East, Delhi issued on 20.06.2018;
ii) Voter Identity Card (Annexure-E2 to the writ
petition) issued on 05.12.2005 by the Election
Commission of India, Delhi bearing No. GVC1067974
in the name of Abdul Rahim; father's name as Md
Sahajaha, and the address as 495, Jhuggi E-43, New
Seema Puri, Delhi.
iii) Aadhar Card (Annexure-E3 to the writ petition)
bearing No. 3560 5602 0295 issued to Abdul Rahim
s/o Mohd. Shal Jamal showing the date of birth as
14.04.1979 and address as No. 170/4 Kudlu Main
Road, Opposite Sadguru Sainath School, Kudlu,
Bommanahalli, Anekal Bengaluru, Karnataka -
560068.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



iv) PAN Card (Annexure-E4 to the writ petition) issued
by the Income Tax Authorities bearing No.
AKAPR2832H, in the name of Abdul Rahim; father's
name as Mohd Shal Jamal, showing date of birth as
14.04.1979.
v) Driving Licence (Annexure-E5 to the writ petition)
issued by the Transport Department of Government of
NCT of Delhi, bearing Licence No. DL-0520020070560,
in the name of Abdul Rahim s/o Sh.Md. Shah Jamal,
showing date of birth as 14.04.1979, address as D-
140, New Seemapuri, Delhi-110095, issued on
20.03.2010, having validity till 19.03.2013.
vi) UDYAM Registration Certificate (Annexure-C to the
writ petition) issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises bearing the registration
number UDYAM-KR-03-0310627 wherein the name of
the enterprise is shown as 'A.R.Enterprises'; date of
incorporation as 04.10.2017; address as Ground Floor,
Madivala, Bengaluru Urban - 560068 issued on
03.10.2023.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



vii) GST Registration Certificate (Annexure-D to the
writ petition) issued by the Assistant Commissioner,
on 20.09.2023, bearing registration number
29AKAPR2832H1Z3 in the name of Abdul Rahim,
A.R.Enterprises Proprietorship, Ground floor, No.
170/4, Kudlu Village, Madivala, Bengaluru, Bengaluru
Urban, Karnataka-560068.
viii) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Identity Card
(Annexure-E6 to the writ petition) issued to Abdul
Rahim, bearing designation as Auto Driver, in Ward
No. 191 Singa Sandra, showing date of birth as
14.04.1979, and address as No. 170/4, Kudlu Main
Road, Opposite Sadguru Sainath School, Kudlu,
Bengaluru-560068.
ix) Death Certificate of the father of the petitioner
(Annexure-B to the writ petition) bearing registration
number MCDOLIR-0210-004202074 and the name as
Shahjmal, date of death as 16.08.1989, and the date
of registration as 22.11.2010.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




27. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that
when the birth certificate of the petitioner was sought to be
verified by the respondents - authorities, a communication
dated 10.08.2026 was submitted by the office of the Medical
Superintendent, Government of NCT of Delhi, Guru Gobind
Singh Government Hospital indicating that the report has been
submitted by the office of the Medical Superintendent,
Government of NCT of Delhi, Guru Gobind Singh Government
Hospital (a copy of which is produced as Annexure-R3 along
with the counter affidavit of respondent No.5) , wherein it is
stated that there is no birth record of Abdul Rahim S/o
Mohammad Shah Jamal (D. O. B. 14.04.1979) as the said
hospital was established in December 1995. The enquiry report
dated 12.08.2006 (Annexure-R4 to the counter affidavit)
submitted to the FRRO, discloses that no record was found of
the death certificate of Shahjmal (father of the petitioner) at
MCD, Shahdra North Zone, New Delhi and that the said
registration number does not exist.

28. In response to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent No. 5, a rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



petitioner, wherein it has been affirmed that the documents
furnished by the concerned authorities have been furnished by
the petitioner and that the petitioner cannot be held
responsible/accountable for any error in mentioning the
requisite details.

29. The petitioner asserts that he is an Indian citizen and relies
on various documents in support of the same. It is the
contention on behalf of the respondent - authorities that the
petitioner is a Bangladeshi National and that the petitioner is
relying upon fraudulent documents.

30. Although, it is the contention of the respondents that the
petitioner has furnished different birth certificates in
WP.HC.No.40/2026 and in the present petition, the chart (at
para 25 hereinabove) clearly indicates that the details
forthcoming in the said certificates are the same and that the
certificates have been applied for on different dates.

31. Although, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that
based on enquiry made by its officials that the hospital where
the petitioner is stated to have been born in the year 1979 was
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



established only in the year 1995 and on the said ground alone
the writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be rejected, there
are various other documents which have been relied upon by
the petitioner, which have been noticed at para Nos.26(i) to
(ix) herein above. A perusal of copies of the said documents
which are annexed along with the writ petition would indicate
that the Voter Identity Card which has been issued on
05.12.2005 is the earliest document. Further, the documents
relied upon by the petitioner include a Passport which indicates
that the same has been issued after a process of verification.
The said documents clearly indicate that the petitioner has
been residing in India for a considerably long period of time,
throughout the period of which the petitioner has consistently
asserted that he was an Indian citizen.

32. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the
birth certificate of the petitioner has been registered beyond
the period of 2 years from the date of birth and the birth
certificate produced by the petitioner ought not to be relied
upon. However, the said contention cannot be the sole basis for
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



adjudication of the case of the petitioner since there are other
documents relied upon by the petitioner.

33. It is the contention on behalf of the respondents that since
the birth certificate that is relied upon by the petitioner is found
to be fraudulently issued, and various other documents having
been issued based on the birth certificate, no benefit ought to
accrue in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the other
documents. However, the said contention is not to be accepted.
The petitioner has been issued various identity cards by
statutory authorities. A passport has also been issued to the
petitioner, which itself would indicate that some process of
verification has been undertaken by the concerned authorities
before the said documents were issued.

34. Having regard to the aforementioned circumstances, since
the petitioner is asserting that he is an Indian citizen by birth
and is relying upon various documents in support of the same,
the respondent - authorities ought to have afforded an
opportunity to the petitioner and a fair process ought to have
been undertaken to adjudicate the aspect regarding the
assertion of citizenship by the petitioner by considering the
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



various documents relied upon by him before any order is
passed, whereunder the petitioner is sought to be removed
from India.
REG. CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
AND WHETHER THE IMPUGNED MOVEMENT RESTRICTION
ORDER DATED 05.03.2026 COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED
HAVING REGARD TO THE BAIL GRANTED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO. 2509/2012:

35. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that criminal
proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioner in
ST No.1577/2010, which is the subject matter of Criminal
Appeal No.2509/2012 and the impugned order tantamounts to
double jeopardy and is violative of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution of India. Article 20 of the Constitution of India
reads as under:
"20. Protection in respect of conviction for
offences
(1)No person shall be convicted of any offence
except for violation of a law in force at the time of
the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor
be subjected to a penalty greater than that which
might have been inflicted under the law in force at
the time of the commission of the offence.
(2)No person shall be prosecuted and punished for
the same offence more than once.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



(3)No person accused of any offence shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself."


36. In the writ petition the petitioner has averred that he was
prosecuted for the offences under Section 14-A(b) of the
Foreigners Act, 1946, in ST.No.1577/2010 before the Sessions
Court. That vide the judgment and order dated 08.06.2010 the
petitioner was convicted on the allegation that he was a
Bangladeshi National by name Abdul Rahim s/o Shahjamal,
resident of District Bagerhat, Bangladesh. That being
aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal
No.2509/2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
A copy of the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in the said
criminal appeal has been produced as Annexure-H to the writ
petition (a certified copy of the said order has been produced
by the petitioner along with the memo dated 09.10.2026). The
said order dated 06.07.2012 reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Admit. Summon the lower court record.
The maximum sentence awarded is four years' R.I.
under section 14-A(B) Foreigner Act, 1946.

Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



On the bail application, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the co-accused Smt. Ladli
@ Lali has already been granted bail by this Court on
04.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 2451 of 2012 and
the role of the present appellant is also identical to
her and on the ground of parity the appellant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application of
the appellant. However, it is not disputed that the
co-accused having similar role has already been
granted bail by this Court.
Without touching the merit of the case and
considering the fact that co-accused Ladli @ Lali
having similar role has already been granted bail by
this Court, on the ground of parity, the appellant also
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let the accused appellant Abdul Raheem convicted
by judgement and order dated 08.06.2012 passed by
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 1577 of 2010 under section
14-A (B) Foreigner Act, 1946 and 3/12 Passport Act
be released on bail during the pendency of the
Appeal on his executing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned.
The realisation of half of the fine shall remain stayed
during pendency of the appeal, provided the
appellants deposit remaining half of the fine within
one month.
On acceptance of the bail bonds and personal bonds,
the lower court shall transmit photo stat copies
thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of
this appeal.
Connect this Appeal with Criminal Appeal No. 2451
of 2012 (Smt. Ladli @ Lali Vs. State of U.P.) and
Criminal Appeal No. 2508 of 2012 (khalil alias Alam
and another Vs. State of U.P.). "
(emphasis supplied)
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




37. It is also contended that the petitioner having been
convicted in the proceedings before the Sessions Court and the
petitioner having been enlarged on bail pursuant to the order
dated 06.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.2509/2012 (which is
extracted at para 36 hereinabove), by an executive order, the
liberty granted to the petitioner by the said order dated
06.07.2012 cannot be curtailed.

38. In this context, a perusal of the order dated 06.07.2012
passed in Criminal Appeal No.2509/2012 would clearly indicate
that the judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the
petitioner has not been stayed.

39. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that after
being granted bail, he has shifted to Bengaluru along with his
family members and is pursuing various activities for the
purpose of earning his livelihood. That on 05.03.2026, police
official/s attached to Parappana Agrahara Police Station,
pursuant to the instructions issued by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Electronic City Division, Bengaluru, as
part of a drive purportedly undertaken to drive out illegal
Bangladeshi immigrants, took the petitioner into custody since
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



he was suspected to be a foreign national and handed over to
the FRRO. That although he repeatedly asserted that he was an
Indian citizen by birth and offered to produce documents, on
the same day, the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 was
passed.

40. Further, it is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that
pursuant to the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.2509/2012, the petitioner is residing in Bangalore at
the address mentioned in the cause title. The said address of
the petitioner as mentioned in the cause title is also evidenced
by various other material on record, as well as the impugned
order dated 05.03.2026 has been passed.

41. It is pertinent to notice the impugned order dated
05.03.2026, which reads as under:
"No: FRRO/BOI/BLR/MRO/2026-100 Dated:
05.03.2026
MOVEMENT RESTRICTION ORDER
With reference to the request letter dated
05.03.2026 of The Police Inspector, Parappana Agrahara
Police Station, Bengaluru City. I, Foreigners Regional
Registration Officer, in pursuance of notification of
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide
number S.O. 3990 (E), dated 01.09.2025, after due
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



verification of available records and thoroughly profiling
of the person to my satisfaction, hereby impose the
following restrictions under clause (1) of Sub Section (2)
of Section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act,
2025 and under Para 8 of the Immigration and
Foreigners Order, 2025 on the following foreigner with
immediate effect:
Sl.No.
Name Nationality National
ID
1 Md Rahim
Howladar
Bangaldesh Nil
Produced by the Police personnel of Parappana Agrahara
Police Station, Bengaluru City.
The above mentioned foreign national is being referred
to the Utile Foundation, Kothanur, Bengaluru under
Kothanur Police Station limits with immediate effect. He
will not move out of the Utile Foundation till his
repatriation, as there is every likelihood that he may
disappear and indulge in undesirable activities.
Non-compliance of this order will render him liable for
prosecution under Section 23 of The Immigration and
Foreigners Act, 2025. The officials of Parappana
Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City are escorting
the above foreign national from office of the FRRO
Bangalore to Utile Foundation, Kothanur, Bengaluru.
Foreigners Regional Registration Officer."


42. It is pertinent to note that the impugned order does not
refer to the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.2509/2012. The
conviction order passed by the Sessions Court which is the
subject matter of consideration in Criminal Appeal
No.2509/2012 is not the basis for the passing of the impugned
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



order dated 05.03.2026. The impugned order is passed on the
presumption/premise that the petitioner is a foreigner.

43. It is also pertinent to note that the name mentioned in the
impugned order is "Md Rahim Howladar", whereas the name of
the petitioner in the present petition, is mentioned as "Shri
Abdul Rahim s/o Mohd. Shal Jamal". The impugned order
records a finding that the same is passed against a foreign
national.

44. While the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide the said
order dated 06.07.2012, he was not ordered to be confined in a
detention centre by the High Court of Allahabad. However, it
cannot be said that the authorities acting under the provisions
of the Foreigners Act 2025 are not empowered to detain a
Foreign National which is in the nature of an executive order.
REG. THE BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF THE IMPUGNED
MOVEMENT RESTRICTION ORDER DATED 05.03.2026:

45. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner
being a Bangladeshi is required to be sent back having regard
to steps / measures being taken by the authorities in that
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



regard. Reliance is placed by the respondents on a
communication dated 02.05.2025.

46. It is the contention on behalf of the respondents that a
communication dated 02.05.2025 has been issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to all the
14
officials in the States and Union Territories as to the
procedure for deportation of illegal Bangladeshi Nationals /
Rohingyas (Myanmar Nationals). A copy of the said
communication dated 02.05.2025 is placed on record. The said
communication prescribes guidelines for orderly migration and
timely exit of illegal migrants. In the said communication,
guidelines are set out for deportation/sending back of illegal
Bangladeshi Nationals/Rohingyas, who are intercepted at the
Border (land or maritime), as well as, those who are
apprehended in the country. The guidelines stipulated for the
protocol to be followed while dealing with cases of Bangladeshi
Nationals / Rohingyas illegally staying in the country and who
have been apprehended are as under:
“Illegally staying Bangladeshis / Rohingyas (Myanmar
nationals) apprehended in the country

14
Hereinafter referred to as 'UT'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



Xxxxxx

9. The following protocols shall be followed in dealing
with cases of illegally staying in Bangladeshis /
Rohingyas (Myanmar nationals) apprehended in the
country.
(i) All State Governments/UT Administrations shall set
up a Special Task Force in each District under the police
of the State/UT to detect, identify and deport /send-
back illegal immigrants from Bangladesh / Myanmar
settled in the State/UT concerned.
(ii) All State Governments/UT Administrations shall set
up adequate Holding Centers in each District under the
Police of the State/UT to detain illegal Immigrants from
Bangladesh/Myanmar.

(iii) In respect of Bangladesh/ Myanmar nationals
identified to be staying unauthorizedly in any particular
State/UT, an inquiry shall be conducted by the State
Government/UT concerned.
(iv) If the suspected Bangladesh / Myanmar national
claims Indian citizenship and residence of a place in any
other Indian State/UT, the concerned State
Government/UT would send to the Home Secretary of
the State/UT and District Collector/District Magistrate of
the District from where the suspected person claims to
hail, the details including name, parentage, residential
address, details of near relatives etc. The State
Government/ UT/Collector/District Magistrate concerned
in turn will ensure that appropriate report is sent to the
deporting State Government/UT after proper verification
within a period of 30 days. All the States/UTs shall issue
appropriate instructions to the District Collectors/District
Magistrates for ensuring verification of claim of such
suspected persons well in time. During the period of 30
days, the suspected person shall be kept in the Holding
Center to ensure physical availability at the time of
deportation/ send-back. If no report is received within
the period of 30 days, the Foreigners Registration
Officer may take necessary, action to deport/ send-back
the suspected Bangladesh / Myanmar national.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




(v) If a person is identified as an illegal Bangladesh
national / Rohingya after the enquiry, the State/ UT
shall immediately capture their biometrics (fingerprints
and facial photographs) and demographic details on the
Foreigners Identification Portal (FIP)
https://identification.mha.gov.in of the MHA. Where
connectivity is not available, these shall be captured
offline and then shall then be uploaded on the
Foreigners Identification Portal (FIP)
https://identification.mha.gov.in of the MHA as soon as
possible. For this purpose, the State/ UT shall use the
biometric equipment available at the Districts under the
District Police Module for capturing the biometric data on
FIP. In case biometric equipment is available at the
Police Station in the State/UT, the same may be used to
upload data on FIP. The use of NAFIS to capture
biometrics will stand to be discontinued.
(vi) After completion of the enquiry and capturing of
biometric and demographic details as above, the illegal
immigrants from Bangladesh/ Myanmar detected
States/UTs other than the border States with
Bangladesh/ Myanmar shall be taken by the concerned
State/UT Police under proper escort, in groups as far as
possible, and handed over to the designated Border
Guarding Forces / Coast Guards at the places designated
by the Central Government. The State/UT Police who is
escorting the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh /
Myanmar should carry the appropriate order issued by
the competent authority of the State Government/UT
Administration under section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners
Act, 1946 after proper enquiry. Thereafter, the
designated Border Guarding Forces/Coast Guards shall
facilitate their exit from India to Bangladesh or Myanmar
as the case may be. Such illegal immigrants from
Bangladesh / Myanmar shall also Blacklisted.

(vii) Those State Governments having borders
contiguous with Bangladesh or Myanmar shall also hand
over the illegal Bangladeshi or Rohingya migrants the
officer of designated Border Guarding Forces / Coast
Guards at the designated place after completion of the
enquiry and capturing of biometric and demographic
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



details as above. Such illegal immigrants from
Bangladesh/ Myanmar shall also be Blacklisted.

(viii) In emergent situations, after enquiry is complete,
the designated Border Guarding Force/ Coast Guards
can also pick up the illegal Banglades nationals/
Rohingyas from the Holding Centers in the State/ UT
and take them directly to India's border for
deportation/send-back.

(ix) Advance information about the movement of
deportees under police escort would be given by the
State/UT from which deportees are being sent to such
State/UT through which the movement is done. Advance
information about the movement of deportee would also
be sent to the Home Secretary and Director General of
Police of the border State through which deportation/
send-back is to be effected. The Nodal officer in
designated Border Guarding Forces / Coast Guards shall
also be informed of the same by the State
Government/UT Administration, from which deportees
are being sent, in advance.

(x) Designated Border Guarding Forces/Coast Guards
shall furnish to the State/UT police authorities proper
acknowledgment of the illegal Bangladeshi or Rohingya
migrants handed over to them for deportation/send-
back by the State/JT Police authorities. The designated
Border Guarding Forces / Coast Guards shall also furnish
a report to the State Government/UT Administration
concerned after the deportation of the illegal
Bangladeshi or Rohingya migrant,

(xi) The details, i.e. the name, designation, telephone
numbers and e-mail address, of the nodal person in the
designated Border Guarding Forces / Coast Guards to
whom the illegal immigrants are to be handed over for
deportation/ send-back shall be informed to all the State
Governments/UTs.

(xii) All State Governments/UT Administrations should
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



maintain a record of illegal Bangladesh national or
Rohingya handed over to designated Border Guarding
Forces / Coast Guards for deportation and send a report
in this regard to the Ministry of Home Affairs by the 15th
day of every month through the FRRO. This report is
mandatory.

(xiii) The Bureau of Immigration shall publish a list of
illegal Bangladesh nationals/Rohingyas who have been
deported / sent-back on a public portal so that the same
can be used for verification. This data shall also be
shared with the UIDAI, Election Commission of India,
Ministry of External Affairs (Passports Division), and any
other Government agencies who grant Government
Identity cards/ offer social benefits under Government
schemes to enable deactivation / suspension of Identity
cards / social benefits connected with the illegal
Bangladesh national/ Rohingya.


47. The said guidelines specifically stipulate that "if the
suspected national claims Indian citizenship and residence of a
place in India", the concerned State Government/UT was
required to send to the Home Secretary of the State/UT and the
District Collector or District Magistrate of the District, details
regarding from where the suspected person claims to hail, the
details of the said person and the concerned State Government
is to ensure that an appropriate report is sent to the deporting
State Government/UT after proper verification within 30 days.
It is further stipulated that during the said period of 30 days,
the suspected person was to be kept in a Holding Centre to
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



ensure protocol is followed at the time of deportation/sending
back. That if no report is received within 30 days, the FRRO is
to take necessary action to deport/send back the suspected
Bangladeshi Nationals / Rohingyas (Myanmar Nationals). It is
further stipulated that if the person is identified as an illegal
Bangladeshi National, after enquiry the biometric fingerprints,
official photographs and demographic details are to be captured
15
on the Foreigners Identification Portal .

48. It is also pertinent to notice that in the communication
dated 02.05.2025 with regard to the procedure / protocols to

be followed for deportation of illegal Bangladeshi Nationals /
Rohingyas (Myanmar Nationals), there is no mention of either
the provisions of the Foreigners Act 2025 or the Foreigners
Order 2025.

49. It is also to be noticed that the process as contemplated in
the guidelines mentioned in the communication dated
02.05.2025, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India (the relevant portion of which has been
extracted at para 46 hereinabove), as to the protocols to be

15
Hereinafter referred to as ‘FIP’
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



followed while dealing with cases of illegally staying
Bangladeshi Nationals / Rohingyas (Myanmar Nationals) was
commenced by the respondent authorities only after filing of
the present writ petition as is forthcoming from the
communication dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure-R1 to the writ
petition filed along with the counter affidavit of respondent
No.5).

50. It is also relevant to note Section 8 of the Foreigners Act,
1946 provided for determination of Nationality. The said
Section 8 reads as under:
" 8.Determination of nationality.—
(1)When a foreigner is recongnised as a national by the
law of more than one foreign country or where for any
reason it is uncertain what nationality if any is to be
ascribed to a foreigner, that foreigner may be treated as
the national of the country with which he appears to the
prescribed authority to be most closely connected for
the time being in interest or sympathy or if he is of
uncertain nationality, of the country with which he was
last so connected.
Provided that where a foreigner acquired a nationality
by birth, he shall, except where the Central Government
so directs either generally or in a particular case, be
deemed to retain that nationality unless he proves to
the satisfaction of the said authority that he has
subsequently acquired by naturalization or otherwise
some other nationality and still recognized as entitled to
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



protection by the Government of the country whose
nationality he has so acquired.
(2) A decision as to nationality given under sub-section
(1) shall be final and shall not be called in question in
any Court.
Provided that the Central Government, either of its own
motion or on an application by the foreigner concerned,
may revise any such decision."

51. However, in the Foreigners Act, 2025 a similar provision
requiring determination of nationality is not forthcoming. In
this context, it is pertinent to note that Sections 6 to 16 in
Chapter III of the Foreigners Act, 2025, stipulate the matters
relating to foreigners. Sections 15 and 16 of the said Act, read
as under :
" 15. When a foreigner, while in India with a valid
passport or other travel document and valid visa, is
recognised as a national by the law of more than one
foreign country, the civil authority or Immigration
Officer may, after due verification of all available
documents and inquiry, treat that foreigner as the
national of the country on whose passport or travel
document he had entered into India or with which he
appears to be most closely connected for the time being
and the decision of civil authority or Immigration Officer
in this regard shall be final:

Provided that the Central Government, either of its own
motion or on an application by the foreigner concerned,
may revise any such decision.

16. If in any case, not falling under section 15, any
question arises with reference to this Act or any rule or
order made or direction given thereunder, whether any
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



person is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or
description, the us of proving that such person is not a
foreigner or is not a foreigner of such rticular class or
description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023, lie upon such person."


52. It is pertinent to note herein that while the respondent-
authorities seek to assert that the petitioner is a Bangladeshi
National, the present fact situation is not one where the
petitioner has been apprehended by the respondent -
authorities when the petitioner was illegally entering the
country. The documents on record clearly indicate that the
petitioner is residing in India for the past 21 years and the
petitioner asserts that he is an Indian citizen by birth. Having
regard to the same, the contention of the petitioner,
whereunder he claims to be an Indian citizen vis-à-vis the
allegation of the respondents wherein it is asserted that the
petitioner is a Bangladeshi National, is to be adjudicated in
accordance with law.

53. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, at para 7
it is deposed that the Electoral Photo Identity Card of the
petitioner was verified and no Voter Identity Card record was
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



found in the official Electoral Database. It is further deposed at
para 12 of the said affidavit that the Passport of the petitioner
has been verified pursuant to communication dated 13.07.2026
sent by respondent No.5 and the Regional Passport Office vide
its response dated 15.07.2026, the petitioner submitted his
PAN Card, Registration Certificate of a four wheeler bearing No.
KA401477 (Model TATA 207 Di B III) which was registered on
06.02.2006, the address in the said Vehicle Registration Card is
mentioned as Madiwala, Koramangala, Bangalore. It is further
deposed that a three month Bank account statement for Axis
Bank of which he was a joint holder, and Aadhar Card was also
furnished. It is deposed at para 14 of the said counter affidavit
that the petitioner has failed to establish his citizenship under
the applicable provisions of the Citizenship Act and that the
primary documents produced by him, namely the Birth
Certificate, father's Death Certificate and Voter Identity Card
having fraudulently been obtained, fabricated / forged, the
secondary documents such as Aadhar Card, PAN Card, and
Driving Licence having been issued on the basis of the said
fraudulent documents carrying no legal sanctity.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




54. The respondents have also produced a communication
dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure-R1 filed along with the counter
affidavit of respondent No.5), whereunder the FRRO has
forwarded documents to the Home Department, Government of
NCT, Delhi, as well as the Home Department, Kolkata. The said
communication dated 10.07.2026 is issued in terms of para
9(iv) of the procedure for deportation of illegal Bangladeshi
Nationals / Rohingyas (Myanmar Nationals). In the said
communication, it is stated that the suspected Bangladeshi
National is "Mr. Mohd Rahim Howladar" (Bangladeshi NID
No.2690812881). The petitioner has also been referred to as
Abdul Rahim @ Mohd. Rahim Howladar in the said
communication. Details of the judgment of the Sessions Court
as well as pendency of Criminal Appeal No.2509/2012 have
also been stated. However, there is no response that is placed
on record to the said communication dated 10.07.2026.

55. It is also pertinent to notice a Division Bench judgment of
the Calcutta High Court in the case of Amir Khan V/s Union
16
of India wherein the High Court was dealing with a writ of

16
Order dated 26.09.2025 passed in W.P. (AH ) 51/2025
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



Habeas Corpus filed for production of the relative of the
petitioner who was deported to Bangladesh on the ground that
the corpus was a Bangladeshi National. In the said case, it is
also contended that the corpus was an Indian citizen and
possessed various identity cards. The High Court disposed of
the said writ petition and set aside the order of detention and
deportation and directed the concerned authorities to bring
back the corpus by making necessary correspondence with the
authorities at the High Commission of India, Dhaka,
Bangladesh. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as
under:
"29. A police officer is clearly a person in authority.
Insistence on answering is a form of pressure
especially in the atmosphere of the police station
unless certain safeguards erasing duress are adhered
to. Frequent threats of prosecution if there is failure
to answer may take on the complexion of undue
pressure violating Article 20(3). Legal penalty may
by itself not amount to duress but the manner of
mentioning it to the victim of interrogation may
introduce an element of tension and tone of
command perilously hovering near compulsion.

30. The law presumes that a statement to a police
officer may have been obtained through pressure or
force and is therefore not voluntary. A confessional
statement made before a police officer and without
any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of
the
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14,
20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. A close
perusal of the interrogation forms as annexed would
reveal that in the column ‘details of family members
and where they are residing’, the names of family
members have been mentioned without mentioning
the place where they are residing. Suspicion,
howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual
proof. There is no appellate authority. In the affidavit
filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4, it is stated no
enquiry was required but in the memo date
23.06.2025 it was stated that an enquiry was
conducted. There is also no ‘adverse security report’
against the detainees.

31. The detainees have their relations residing in the
State of West Bengal. There is no allegation that
they are indulging in activities prejudicial to the
State and as such, the kind of overenthusiasm in
deporting the detainees, as visible herein, is
susceptible to misunderstanding and disturbs the
judicial climate in the country. That the proceeding
for deportation was conducted in hot haste.

32. Sweety, Kurban and Imam were produced before
the Sub-Inspector, K.N. Katju Marg Police Station, on
21.06.2025. Thereafter, the FRRO by a memo dated
24.06.2025 directed that the said persons shall be
kept in the community Centre, near Lal Quarter,
Vijay Vihar Phase-2, P.S Vijay Vihar, Rohini District,
Delhi. Thereafter, the deportation order was passed
on 26.06.2025. From such sequence of fact it is
explicit that the respondents admittedly did not
follow the provisions of the memo dated 02.05.2025
inasmuch as the details of the said persons were not
forwarded to the State of West Bengal of which they
are the residents. It is only after such documents are
forwarded, the concerned State Government has to
ensure that appropriate report is sent to the
deporting
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 52 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



to the State Government/UT after proper verification
within a period of 30 days. Admittedly no such
enquiry was conducted and the Delhi Administration
did not even wait for a week before issuance the
order of deportation. The memo dated 02.05.2025
also provides that in any emergent situation and
after enquiry is completed step towards deportation
may be taken. No statement is forthcoming that
there was any such emergent situation. The
respondents have thus acted in hot haste and have
not adhered to the said memo and such act cripples
the constitutional grant of fairness and
reasonableness. The non-impleadment of the FRRO
is also not fatal for maintainability of the writ petition
inasmuch as the order is inextricably bound with the
chain of events starting from the production of the
persons before the Inspector of the police station at
Rohini, Delhi. Moreover, the storied jurisprudence on
the anvil of protection of constitutional rights in this
country, has repeatedly held that when substantial
justice is pitted against technical considerations, the
cause of the former demands preference over the
other especially when the writ court can visualise
that deference to such technical considerations
would have the consequence of throwing out an
otherwise meritorious claim right at the threshold.

33. The question of citizenship should be considered
based on further documents and evidence before an
appropriate Court. In the limited scope of the writ
petition, though the Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, and
Voter ID Card were part of the Writ Petition,
however, as none of these aforementioned
documents are proof of citizenship and proof of
identity, it may not be sufficient to decide the issue
of citizenship finally. Having said this it cannot be
denied that the memo of 02.05.2025 applies only to
Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar;
thus, if we take the worst-case scenario of the
detainees, that they were not Indian citizens, the
steps and procedures laid down in the memo ought
to have been followed by the concerned authorities.
Not following such procedure and acting in hot haste
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 53 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



to deport them is a clear violation which renders the
deportation order bad in law and liable to be set
aside. The process and procedure adopted in the
deportation raise a suspicion that the concerned
authorities, while acting in hot haste, have clearly
violated the provisions of the memo of 02.05.2025.

34 .xxxx

35. The life style of the people shapes the profile of
the law and not vice versa. Law cannot be disjuncted
from context. The fundamental rights cannot be read
as dull lifeless words. If an uncontrolled or unguided
power is conferred without any reasonable and
proper standards or limits being laid down in the
enactment for guidance and control of exercise of
such power, the act cannot by the furthest of
imagination be construed to be a ‘procedure
established by law’. The executive cannot be vested
with any non-fettered discretion. If officials exercise
their public authority in an arbitral whimsical
manner, the same would bring such act within the
scope of prohibition of the equity clause. The Court
cannot doggedly hold fast to principles which tend to
compel a litigant to retreat from a path of pursuing
writ remedies, especially when social realities of the
current generation mandates that the law must be
rid of these principles and bring itself in accord ‘with
the felt necessities of the times’.

36. For and on the strength of the totality of reasons
afore-indicated, the order of detention dated
24.06.2025 and the order of deportation dated
26.06.2025 so far as Sweety, Kurban and Imam are
concerned, are set aside and the respondent nos. 1
to 6 are mandatorily directed to take all steps to
bring back Sweety, Kurban and Imam to India within
a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication
of the order. The said respondents, for such purpose,
shall make necessary correspondence and interact
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 54 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



with the authorities at High Commission of India,
Dhaka, Bangladesh."
(emphasis supplied)

56. As noticed above, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court after noticing that the person in question was detained
and deported without any fair and reasonable opportunity
having been granted, ordered for steps to be taken to bring
back the person in question.

57. It is also pertinent to notice the judgment of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of
Rasidaben
w/o. Sidikbhai Daudbhai Sheikh (alias llyas) V/s State of
17
Gujarat. In the said case, the High Court was dealing with a
fact situation wherein a writ of Habeas Corpus was filed for
production of the son of the petitioner who was alleged to have
been illegally detained by the concerned authorities on the
ground that he was suspected to be a Bangladeshi National. In
the said case, the petitioner and her husband possessed
various documents demonstrating the identity issued by the
Indian Authorities. It was contended by the petitioner that the

17
Order dated 04.02.2022 Passed in Special Criminal Application No.2844/2020.

Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 55 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



son of the petitioner was born in India. However, there were no
documents to prove his birth. But there were various other
documents to demonstrate the identity of the son of the
petitioner. In the said fact situation, the High Court considered
the legal position as well as the circular dated 02.05.2025
issued by the Central Government for the purpose of
deportation of Bangladeshi immigrants, the High Court set
aside the order of detention and directed the question of
nationality to be decided by the concerned authorities, till which
time the son of the petitioner was directed to be released on
reasonable terms and conditions as deemed appropriate by the
concerned authorities. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is as under:
"20.1 In Special Criminal Application (Habeas
Corpus) No.8527 of 2016, the husband of the
petitioner was a citizen of Bangladesh and several
criminal cases were registered against him. He
resided in India without proper documents. The
petitioner was granted bail in connection with the
criminal cases. The order came to be passed under
Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Foreigners Act
ordering to keep the husband of the petitioner in
confinement/restrictions. The petitioner also
produced certain documents that he was an Indian
national. As the question of nationality surfaced, the
Court directed him to approach the concerned
authority under Section 8 and disposed of the
habeas corpus petition.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 56 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



20.2 Likewise, in Special Criminal Application No.
315 of 2017, it was contended by the respondent –
State that prima facie material emerged that the
petitioner’s wife was a Bangladesh national and she
was staying in India without permission. She was,
therefore, kept in confinement by the Special
Operational Group. The concern was voiced about
the wellbeing of hers and the authorities had been
directed to produce her before the Court. On inquiry,
there was no ill treatment found. As there was a
question of nationality of the lady, the Court held
that the same cannot be decided in the habeas
corpus petition. There were several original
documents such as Voter’s Card, Aadhar Card etc.
concerning the lady which had been supplied to the
SOG to show that she was a citizen of India. The
Court directed that it would be open for the
petitioner to bring these to the notice of the
authorities and produce the copies of such
documents for consideration and despite that
exercise, if the question of nationality remain
undecided, it would be always open to the petitioner
to take up the issue with the concerned ministry or
the Central Government in terms of the Foreigners
Act.
21. Being conscious of these decisions and also
conscious of the fact that in the event of deciding the
question of nationality, the issue shall have to be
raised before the appropriate authority by the
petitioner, this Court is restricting its inquiry into the
validity and propriety of the
order passed by the civil authority by examining the
principles of administrative law. It shall have to be
questioned as to whether the order passed was legal,
rational and the procedural propriety also shall need
to be inquired into. The principle of natural justice
would demand the hearing as also considering the
material which has been placed before the authority
concerned.
22. Without entering into the aspect of the
nationality, if one looks at the report prepared by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police in his capacity as a
senior officer reporting to the Additional
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 57 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



Commissioner of Police who has been made a civil
authority, it is quite apparent that the inquiry has
been limited to the visa and the passport. The
person concerned since could not produce the same
on the very day of patrolling i.e. on 20.06.2020, the
respondent no.3 along with other four persons has
been detained at the detention centre of SOG and
since then, the corpus continues to be at the SOG
Centre.
23. It is to be noted at this stage that there are
various documents which have been produced before
this Court, which in the report, are missing. There
has been no inquiry at all made of the parents of the
present corpus as the mother is the petitioner and
her nationality is not questioned nor doubted even.
There are six children of the petitioner and the
corpus is one of them. Several years before, the SOG
had also made an inquiry and detained the
respondent no.3 and later on, he was released on
having not found anything adverse. The corpus has
been once again during the patrolling questioned by
the authority and since he could not show his
passport and visa, he has been detained on the
ground that he is a Bangladeshi national. It is
admitted by the respondent authority that he has no
criminal background. He is a labourer working for his
livelihood. He has his wife who is an Indian national
and four children are born out of their wedlock. The
documents of his parents, his siblings, his wife and
his children have not been regarded by the authority
concerned as there was no opportunity given for him
to establish his nationality. The Central Government
has delegated the powers to the civil authority which
is from the State Government and the powers also
are given to them to inquire into the nationality of a
person, therefore, the powers are to be exercised in
accordance with law. The least that is expected of
the person who has been given such wide and vital
powers of recommending the deportation of a person
on the basis that he is not an Indian national, is to
avail an opportunity of hearing to the person
concerned. We had pertinently queried learned Public
Prosecutor as to whether there is any notice given
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 58 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



and a separate opportunity has been made available
for those who have been suspected as foreign
nationals, to adduce the relevant material for proving
the nationality. So far as the corpus is concerned, his
education from 3rd standard is in the school at
Juhapura. He also has produced before this Court his
Aadhar Card so also his Election Card. Certain
anomalies in the names from Aamir to Amir is much
emphasized. It is to be highlighted here specifically
that the report of the Deputy Police Commissioner
and of the Additional Police Commissioner, Special
Group also refers him as Amir and not Aamir and
thus, this anomaly can surely not been blown out of
proportions.

24. Be that as it may, there is no doubt with regard
to his identity. His entire family is in India. The order
mentions his relatives and family being in
Bangladesh, this being a common order for all the
five persons who had been detained on the same
day, the authority possibly being unmindful of the
individual case, has reported it. The form filled-in by
the authority also gives the details which are
incorrect and based on the same, the Additional
Police Commissioner has on 02.07.2020 exercised
the powers under Section 3(2)(g) of the Foreigners
Act, 1946, Section 5 of the Foreigners Orders and
the authorization he received vide notification dated
02.12.1960 of the State Government and directed
the order or detention till the order of deportation is
received.

25. Worthwhile it is to make a mention that when
this Court requested the learned ASG to address the
Court on possible time period for the deportation in
case of the foreign nationals and particularly
Bangladeshi nationals, he fairly submitted that
depending on the response received from the
Bangladesh Authority, on due verification of the
nationality of those persons for whom the proposal is
sent for deportation, the implementation is made.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 59 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



There is no fix period, as a lot depends on other
outer agencies. Although, it is not confirmed by the
respondent, by way of an affidavit it is claimed that
there are persons who are not deported for more
than four to eight years. This Court is not choosing
to enter into that as this is not the scope of this
petition, at the same time, so far as the case on
hand is concerned, when it has been noticed by this
Court incidentally while addressing the issue raised
by the petitioner, let this aspect be taken up with
requisite seriousness by the concerned authority
dealing with issue of deportation at the level of
External Affairs Ministry and learned ASG is expected
to play a vital role in streamlining this aspect and its
due implementation, up-keeping the human dignity.
It is quite obvious from the order passed on
02.07.2020 that the same is without availing any
opportunity to the corpus to adduce the necessary
material.
26. Without evaluating the material which has been
produced before this Court by the corpus, we deem it
appropriate to direct the authority concerned to avail
that opportunity and for the corpus to produce, for
consideration of the authorities, the necessary
testimonials.
27. Admittedly, as mentioned above, the report
prepared by the DCP was without even availing
opportunity to the corpus and the Additional
Commissioner has acted upon the same. We are
conveyed that till date, nothing has moved and the
corpus continues to be at the detention centre. When
serious flaw is noticed in observing principles of
natural justice, without entering the issue of
nationality, on a limited ground of non-availment of
opportunity, this Court deems it appropriate to
intervene and to that limited extent, indulgence
would be inevitable, noticing unbridled powers
assigned to the authority, of course, for catching
illegal/unauthorized nationals. Resultantly, the
opportunity requires to be availed noticing apparent
breach of administrative law and very peculiar facts
concerning respondent no.3 and his family.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 60 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



28. Till that exercise is completed, the petitioner
shall be released on the reasonable terms and
conditions, as deemed appropriate by the concerned
authority within one week of receipt of copy of this
order, so as to ensure his availability if he cannot
satisfy the authority on the strength of his
testimonials.
29. The corpus since has questioned his confinement
at the SOG, without entering into the issue of
nationality and its nuances, to be determined by the
concerned authority as the same is found to have
been done in disregard to the basic requirement of
availing opportunity. This petition to that limited
extent is allowed and disposed of in above terms."
(emphasis supplied)

58. As noticed above, the Division Bench of the High court of
Gujarat after noticing that the person in question was detained
without an adequate opportunity having been granted, ordered
for the release of the said person having regard to the
documents that were sought to be relied upon.

59. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known and
WP.HC No.40/2026 was filed. That in the said proceedings the
impugned order dated 05.03.2026 was produced by the
respondents, consequent to which WP HC No.40/2026 was
disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2026 reserving liberty to
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 61 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated
05.03.2026.

60. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner
before he was detained at the Foundation. It is further
contended that on a mere apprehension that the petitioner was
a Bangladeshi National, the impugned order has been passed
without any finding having been recorded in any proceedings as
contemplated under law, prior to issuance of the impugned
order.

61. In this context, it is contended on behalf of the
respondents that the filing of the present writ petition itself is a
procedure that would meet the requirement of law, wherein an
opportunity is afforded to the petitioner to produce material to
demonstrate that he is an Indian citizen. Reliance is placed by
the respondents on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Mr Christopher Charles Kamolins v.
18
Union of India to contend that post-decisional
representation and judicial review under Article 226 of the

18
WP.No.26412/2019 - Order dated 09.02.2026; NC:2026:KHC:8290
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 62 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



Constitution of India satisfy the requirement of natural justice.
The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :
"17.15 Applying the proportionality doctrine articulated
in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh
and reaffirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the
impugned action satisfies constitutional scrutiny. The
objective of regulating foreign presence is legitimate.
The direction to leave is rationally connected to that
objective. No less restrictive measure would achieve
removal where continued stay is impermissible. The
impact is limited to termination of territorial presence
and does not entail penal consequences. The balance
clearly favours sovereign regulatory interest.
17.16. The contention regarding violation of natural
justice must be examined contextually. Principles of audi
alteram partem are flexible and not rigid. In Maneka
Gandhi, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that a
pre-decisional hearing is not an invariable constitutional
mandate in every context.
17.17. In matters of immigration control, closely
connected with sovereignty and public order, Parliament
has not prescribed a mandatory adjudicatory hearing
prior to issuance of an order under Section 3(2)(c). In
Hans Muller, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not read
such a requirement into the statute.
17.18. Where power is preventive and regulatory,
particularly concerning non-citizens, fairness may be
satisfied through contextual safeguards, including
availability of postdecisional representation and judicial
review under Article 226. The existence of constitutional
oversight serves as a significant check against abuse."


62. The reliance placed on the judgment of Mr Christopher
15
Charles Kamolins will not aid the case of the respondents,
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 63 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



inasmuch as in the said case an Australian citizen was granted
an Employment Visa. It was subsequently found by the
concerned authorities that the documents/material that was
furnished for issuance of the Employment Visa was fraudulent.
Hence, during the period of the Employment Visa, a Leave
India Notice was issued to the petitioner therein, which was
assailed before this Court. The said factual matrix is completely
different from the factual matrix of the present case.

63. It is pertinent to notice para 16 of the Foreigners Order,
2025, which reads as under:
"1
6. Constitution of Foreigners Tribunals.-(1) The
Central Government or the State Government or the
Union territory Administration or the District
Collector or the District Magistrate may, by order,
refer the question as to whether a person is or is not
a foreigner within the meaning of the Act to a
Foreigners Tribunal constituted for the purpose by
the Central Government, for its opinion.

(2) The registering authority appointed under sub-
rule (1) of rule 19 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 may
also refer to the Foreigners Tribunal the question
whether a person of Indian origin, complies with any
of the requirements under sub-section (3) of section
6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955).
(3) Any person referred to in paragraph 8 of the
Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens
and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003
may prefer an appeal, on the terms and conditions
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 64 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



specified therein, before the Foreigners Tribunal
constituted under this Order.
(4) The Foreigners Tribunal shall consist of maximum
three members having judicial experience as the
Central Government may think fit to appoint.
(5) Where the Foreigners Tribunal consists of two or
more members, one of whom shall be appointed as
the Chairperson thereof."


64. It is clear from a reading of para 16 of the Foreigners
Order, 2025 that the question whether a person is or is not a
foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 2025 is to
be decided by a Foreigners Tribunal constituted for the said
purpose. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner asserts
that he is an Indian citizen, in support of which he has relied
upon many documents as noticed in paras 25 and 26
hereinabove.

65. There is no material on record to indicate that that prior to
issuance of the impugned order dated 05.03.2026, the
petitioner was notified of the assertion that he was alleged to
be a foreign national and the documents that are sought to be
relied upon by the petitioner in the present writ petition have
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 65 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



been considered before a conclusion has been reached that the
petitioner was a foreigner.

66. It is further pertinent to notice that apart from the criminal
case in ST No.1577/2010, which is the subject matter of
Criminal Appeal No.2509/2012, no other criminal cases have
been registered against the petitioner nor is the petitioner
reported to have any criminal antecedents. It is neither alleged
on behalf of the respondents nor is there any material to
indicate that the presence of the petitioner in India gives rise to
an apprehension regarding national security.

67. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of in
Re:
19
Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures,
would contend that the rule of law mandates that the petitioner
ought to have been notified of the assertion that he was a
Bangladeshi National and there ought to have been an
adjudication with regard to the citizenship as asserted by the
petitioner.

19
(2025) 5 SCC 1
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 66 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




68. Reliance is also placed by the petitioner on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of National Human Rights
20
Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr., . The
said case arose in a fact situation wherein an action was
proposed to be taken by the State Government against a tribal
community called Chakmas living in the State of Arunachal
Pradesh. In the said fact situation the National Human Rights
Commission had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court,
whereunder it was, inter alia held as under :
" 20 . We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our
Constitution confers certain rights on every human being
and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is
entitled to equality before the law and equal protection
of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect
the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen
or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or group of
persons, e.g., the AAPSU, to threaten the Chakmas to
leave the State, failing which they would be forced to do
so. No State Government worth the name can tolerate
such threats by one group of persons to another group
of persons; it is duty-bound to protect the threatened
group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will
fail to perform its constitutional as well as statutory
obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to
be dealt with in accordance with law. The State
Government must act impartially and carry out its legal
obligations to safeguard the life, health and well-being
of Chakmas residing in the State without being inhibited
by local politics. Besides, by refusing to forward their

20
(1996) 1 SCC 742
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 67 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



applications, the Chakmas are denied rights,
constitutional and statutory, to be considered for being
registered as citizens of India."
(emphasis supplied)


69. Vide the impugned order dated 05.03.2026, it is observed
by the respondent No.5 - FRRO that "after due verification of
available records and thoroughly profiling of the person to my
satisfaction…" . It is further ordered vide the impugned order
dated 05.03.2026, the petitioner was being referred to the
Foundation. It is also ordered that the petitioner "will not move
out of the Utile Foundation till his repatriation as there is every
likelihood that he may disappear and indulge in undesirable
activities." It is pertinent to note that vide the impugned order,
there is no adjudication of the various documents that have
been relied upon by the petitioner to assert that he is an Indian
citizen.

70. Section 2(b) of the Citizenship Act, defines an illegal
migrant. The same reads as under:
"2(b) “illegal migrant” means a foreigner who has
entered into India―
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 68 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



(i) without a valid passport or other travel documents
and such other document or authority as may be
prescribed by or under any law in that behalf; or
(ii) with a valid passport or other travel documents and
such other document or authority as may be prescribed
by or under any law in that behalf but remains therein
beyond the permitted period of time;
Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from
Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into
India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and
who has been exempted by the Central Government by
or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the
Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 (34 of 1920) or
from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners
Act, 1946 (31 of 1946) or any rule or order made there
under, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the
purposes of this Act;"


71. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
on the order dated 06.07.2026 passed by this Court,
whereunder the respondent - authorities were required to
secure details/particulars of the criminal case that was pending
in Criminal Appeal No. 2509/2012. Admittedly, the said details
have not been furnished by the respondents.

72. It is forthcoming from the counter affidavit filed by
respondent No.5 that the enquiry as to the documents relied
upon by the petitioner have been undertaken by respondent
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 69 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



No. 5 - FRRO consequent to issuance of the impugned order
dated 05.03.2026 and during pendency of the writ petition.
Further, under the Foreigners Act, 2025 the adjudication of the
documents submitted by the petitioner to prove that he is a
foreign national is not vested to be done by the respondent
No.5 - FRRO.

73. Section 7 (2)(f)(ii) of the Foreigners Act, 2025 empowers
orders/directions/instructions to be issued requiring a particular
person to reside at a particular place. In view of the said
stipulation it cannot be stated that the impugned order
requiring the petitioner to be referred to the Foundation and
further ordering that the petitioner shall not move out of the
Foundation is without authority of law.

74. Further, adjudication as to the nationality of the petitioner
has been undertaken by respondent No.5 during the course of
the present proceedings, and the same has been placed on
record in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5. The
said adjudication is not as contemplated under the Foreigners
Act, 2025 or the Foreigners Order, 2025.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 70 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




75. An appreciation of the factual matrix as noticed above
would clearly indicate that while the petitioner was claiming to
be an Indian citizen and had various documents in his
possession issued by the various statutory authorities in India,
he was apprehended by the Police Authorities, on an
apprehension that he was a Bangladeshi National, consequent
to which the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 was passed.
Subsequently during the pendency of the present proceedings
the documents relied upon by the petitioner have been
appreciated by the fifth respondent and placed on record in the
counter affidavit in the course of the present proceedings.

76. Although, it is the vehement contention on behalf of the
respondents that it is the onus on the petitioner to demonstrate
that he was an Indian National, as held by the Supreme Court
12
in the case of Sabitri Dey and by the Division Bench of this
13
Court in the case of Obinna Jeremiah Okafor , a fair
procedure is to be adopted before the petitioner is
deported/removed from India. As noticed in the case of Sabitri
12
Dey , the legal requirement of carrying out a process which is
fair, lawful and reasoned is notwithstanding the burden on the
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 71 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



petitioner that he is required to demonstrate that he is an
Indian citizen.

77. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that there is no stipulation in sub-section (2) of
Section 7 of the Foreigners Act, 2025 to order for detention of
the petitioner. However the impugned order dated 05.03.2026
does not indicate that the petitioner has been detained at the
Foundation. Vide the impugned order the petitioner has been
referred to the Foundation and directed not to leave the
Foundation which is in consonance with Section 7(2)(f)(ii) of
the Foreigners Act, 2025.

78. While the concerned authorities may be justified in
initiating one of the measures under sub-section (2)(f) of
Section 7 of the Foreigners Act 2025, it is also incumbent upon
the authorities to afford an opportunity to the petitioner while
considering the various documents relied upon by the petitioner
in support of the contention that he is an Indian citizen, before
any conclusion is arrived at that he was a Bangladeshi National,
which admittedly has not been done.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 72 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026




79. The present writ petition is filed impugning the movement
restriction order dated 05.03.2026. In the absence of the
concerned authorities initiating steps in accordance with law for
the purpose of determining the nationality of the petitioner and
the petitioner having had an adequate opportunity in respect of
the same, the question of this Court adjudicating upon the
nationality of the petitioner for the first time in the present writ
petition does not arise.

80. However vide the impugned order dated 05.03.2026, the
petitioner has been directed not to move out of the Foundation
till his repatriation. The repatriation of the petitioner would
arise only after there has been an adjudication of his nationality
which admittedly has not been done in accordance with law.

81. The concerned authorities shall take requisite steps /
measures having regard to the conclusions that have been
arrived at as is forthcoming in the counter affidavit of
respondent No.5 as to the nationality of the petitioner and
further steps / measures be undertaken in that regard after
affording an adequate opportunity to the petitioner in
accordance with law which is to be done as expeditiously as
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

- 73 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62981
WP No. 19120 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010416612026



possible. Till the further steps as regards the nationality of the
petitioner is undertaken by the concerned authorities the
repatriation / deportation of the petitioner shall not be
undertaken by the concerned authorities.

82. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned
terms.

Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA

(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE




BS
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1