Writ Not Maintainable Against Private University for Monetary Relief and Absolute Sovereign Power to Expel Foreigners with Expired Visas.

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 to obtain a fresh visa in 2018, he re-enrolled but allegedly faced academic hurdles, including lack of resources and being barred from exams due to low attendance and non-payment of fees

The Petitioner failed to complete his 3-year B.Sc. IT course within the maximum allowable 5-year period (n+2), earning only 20 out of 138 credits

His last visa extension expired on 31.07.2022, after which the University refused to issue a Bonafide Certificate for further extensions

The Petitioner sought orders for restoration of study rights, financial compensation, and contempt proceedings against authorities for his detention in a deportation camp while the matter was sub-judice

Whether a writ petition for monetary compensation and restoration of educational rights is maintainable against a non-aided private university under Article 226

Whether a foreign national has a legal right to visa extension or to remain in India after the expiry of a valid visa

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

The Court applied the "Public Duty" test for Article 226, establishing that while private bodies performing public functions are amenable to writ jurisdiction, purely private contractual or individual wrongs are not

Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani

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

Regarding the rights of foreigners, the Court relied on Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the "Visa Manual" (Clauses 15.2 and 15.3), which restricts student visas to a 5-year maximum except in rare cases

It further cited the Constitution Bench in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. State of W.B., which held that the Central Government’s power to expel foreigners is absolute and unfettered, and foreigners do not possess the fundamental right to reside or settle in India under Article 19

The Court found the writ against Respondent No. 4 (University) barred because the reliefs sought (monetary compensation for forfeited fees) were individual/private wrongs with no nexus to the discharge of a public duty

Even on merits, the Court noted the Petitioner failed to meet basic academic requirements (attendance and credits) and exceeded the UGC-stipulated "n+2" years for course completion

Consequently, the University was not obligated to issue a Bonafide Certificate

Regarding the visa, since the 5-year student visa period had elapsed and the Petitioner was an "illegal migrant" as of 31.07.2022, he could not claim an extension as a matter of right

The Court determined that the executive has absolute sovereignty to deport aliens upon visa expiry, and judiciary intervention is not warranted unless "rare and exceptional" circumstances exist, which the Petitioner failed to demonstrate

It held that Respondent No. 4 is not amenable to writ jurisdiction for the specific monetary reliefs claimed

The Petitioner has no legal right to remain in India post-visa expiry

The detention was held to be "preventive and regulatory" to facilitate deportation

The Court concluded there was no contempt as authorities acted bonafide under the Foreigners Act

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