Writ against private university for monetary relief is not maintainable as it lacks public law element.

The Petitioner, a Nigerian national, entered India in 2015 on a student visa to study at Apeejay Stya University but later transferred to GD Goenka University (Respondent No. 4)

After returning to Nigeria for a fresh visa in 2017, he re-enrolled but failed to complete the 3-year BSc-IT program within the maximum stipulated 5-year period (n+2 years), earning only 20 out of 138 credits

Respondent No. 4 eventually nullified his degree and refused to issue a Bonafide Certificate required for visa extension

The Petitioner's student visa expired on July 31, 2022

He filed a writ petition seeking restoration of study rights and financial compensation, and a contempt petition alleging illegal detention in a deportation camp while the matter was sub-judice

1. Whether a non-aided private educational institution is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for matters involving monetary compensation and contractual disputes

2. Whether the Petitioner has a legal right to seek a visa extension and continue his education after failing to meet academic requirements and overstaying his original visa

3. Whether the detention of the Petitioner in a deportation camp constitutes contempt of court

The court applied the principle that while private bodies performing public duties (like education) are amenable to Article 226, this jurisdiction is limited to actions with a "public law element" and does not extend to private contractual wrongs, as established in *Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani*

and *St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava*

Regarding immigration, the court relied on Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Ministry of Home Affairs Visa Manual, which limits student visas to 5 years

It further cited *Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. State of W.B.*, affirming the Central Government’s absolute and unfettered discretion to expel foreigners

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner’s claims against the University for fee refunds and compensation were purely private/contractual and lacked the "public law element" necessary for a writ

On merits, the Court found the University justified in withholding the Bonafide Certificate because the Petitioner failed to meet minimum attendance and credit requirements despite multiple opportunities over eight years

Regarding the visa, the Court noted the Petitioner had overstayed since 2022 and failed to demonstrate "rare and exceptional" circumstances for an extension beyond the 5-year limit

The contempt petition was rejected because the Division Bench had already characterized his detention as "preventive and regulatory" to facilitate deportation, meaning the authorities were acting bona fide in accordance with the Foreigners Act

It held that Respondent No. 4 was not liable under writ jurisdiction for the specific reliefs sought

and that a foreign national has no legal right to remain in India once their visa expires

The Court clarified that the respondents did not commit contempt as they were performing statutory duties

The respondents were granted the liberty to proceed with the Petitioner's deportation in accordance with the law