Khalid Ahmed Ghilan Amran, S/O Shri Ahmed Ghilan Amran vs. The State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's claim for a Student Research VISA could not be granted. It noted that the petitioner's admission to Vivekananda Global University was cancelled on 25.11.2019, meaning he no longer had an active admission. Furthermore, the Court referred to the VISA Manual, stating that the maximum period for a Student VISA is five years, and for a Research Scholar, it is generally three years, with possible extensions. The Court found that the maximum period from 2016, when the petitioner began his Ph.D. pursuit, had already expired by 2021. The Court rejected the argument that the cancellation was arbitrary, stating that the right to remain in India as a student is governed by Indian laws and is not an unfettered right. The Court also found no arbitrariness in the respondents' actions, concluding that the outer limit prescribed in the VISA manual had expired, and no further extension could be granted. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Khalid Ahmed Ghilan Amran, a national of Yemen, challenged the premature cancellation of his Research/Stay VISA by the respondents (State of Rajasthan and Union of India) via orders dated 03.09.2019 and 04.09.2019. He sought to pursue a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, after his admission to NIMS University for M.Tech. and Ph.D. was questioned due to non-approval of courses. His VISA was initially extended to 11.04.2020 following a High Court Division Bench order. However, the respondents cancelled his VISA, requiring him to obtain an Exit Permit. The petitioner argued the cancellation was arbitrary and sought directions to consider him for a Student Research VISA and prevent his deportation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's VISA by the respondent-authorities was arbitrary and in violation of the High Court's previous directions (turning on the principles of natural justice and judicial discipline)? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Student Research VISA to complete his Ph.D. course, considering the policy guidelines and the expiry of the maximum permissible duration for such a VISA (turning on the Foreigner's Visa Manual and relevant government policies)? Petitioner's arguments: The impugned orders were arbitrary, issued without affording an opportunity of hearing. The cancellation was a mid-way curtailment of a VISA extended by the Union of India as per a Division Bench order, thus violating court directions. The petitioner, a Ph.D. student, should have been allowed to complete his studies, especially as his conduct was not adverse. The cancellation was based on objections from a local office and lacked valid grounds. The petitioner also argued that the cancellation was motivated by animosity from his previous institution, NIMS University. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents, but implicitly, their actions were based on the petitioner's eligibility and the expiry of the maximum VISA duration as per the VISA Manual.