Ttie High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Gulnaz. w/o. Gatla Viiaykumar, Aged.44 years,. Occ House wife' R/o' " n.'ttii.it:i 531 /4, Vasavi Coiohv, Sarooriagar' Hvderabad' 2. Gatla Miav Kumar, s/o. Gopal. Aged- 37 years,. Occ Pvt Employee' Ryo' -' [rio. t i :Ti+i7+. Visavi Col<inv, Sairoornagar, Hvderabad' AND 1.

7. The State of Telangana, represented by its principal Secretary to the Home Department, Secre-tariat Buildings' Hyderabad The Commissioner of police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Cyberabad (East). Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32- Forehners Reqistration officer & Assistant Commissioner, of police' CybeAbad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32- Unkrnoflndia,RepresentedbyUnderSecretaryMinistryofExtemalaffairs' New Delhi. The Station House officer, Chaithanyapuri police Station, Chaithanyapuri' CVOeTaGO (East), Kothapet' Hyderabad-1 02. The Disfiict Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad' The Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of lndia, New Delhi R7 is impleaded as per CO. dt. 1914117 in WPMP 15168 of 17 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pi""""'a to ir"re an order oi direction more particularly one in the nature of writ 6i..nO"*r" or any other appropriate wrii declaring the Leave lndia Notice no.ie/isisB/RCW2d17, dated' 1it-I-2017 issued by the respondent -.no.3 Jir""ti"g th" petitioner no.1 i.e. the wife of the petitioner no.2, to leave lndia on or U"toi" Zi-t-ZOtt without looking into the fact that, the application for of lndia of t-he petitioner no'1' dated 21-10-2016 with ;;di;;";'" "iti..n MHA File No-2016020768 is under consideration by the respondent no.6, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and viotative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Artides 14, 19 and 21of the constitution of tndia Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed.in.gugport of the petition, Irre Hign Court may be pr.Li"u to suspend the Leave lndia Notice no.18/FSISBIRCI(2O17, dated ,t}4-Zol7 issued by the respondent no.3 directing the petitioner no.1 i.e. the wife of the petiiioner no.2, to leave lndia on or before 2Z-1-ZO1T NO: 201 Petition uncier Section 151 CPC prayjng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased extend the jnterim order granted on 20-1.-2017, exte-nded on zo-t-zo,t'1, unto further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem iit ano proper in the interest of justice. IA '! oF .tR Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, ine Higr' Court may be pteised to extend the interim order granted on 20-1 -2017 and e-xtended timely be extended until further orders. lA NO: 7 OF 2o1B Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, Ine uign court may be ptllsed to extend the interim order granted on20-1-2O17, and e]xtended timely be extended until further orders. Counsel for the petitioners: SRI K. VENUIIADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.{ to 3 & S: Gp FOR HOME counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRt N. BHUJAITGA RAo, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: OREER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI w TP TITI N 1 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: "To issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the Leave lndia Notice no 18/FS/SB/RCI(2017 dated 1812017 issued by the respondent no 3 directing the petitioner no 1 i e the wife of the petitioner no 2 to leave lndia on or before 2212017 without looking into the fact that the application for registration as a citizen of lndia of the petitioner no 1 dated 21102016 with MHA File No 2016020768 is under consideration by the respondent no 6 is nothing but arbitrary illegal null and void and violative of principles of natural ,ustice and also violative of Articles 14 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia "

2. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav' learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for respondent No.4.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the preSent writ petition has been filed challenging the Leave lndia Nofice dated 18-01.2017,whereby petitioner No'1 was directed to leave the country on or before 22'01 '2017 ' lt is contended that 2 the said notice was issued without taking into consideration the application dated 21 .10.2016, filed by petitioner No.1 before the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking registration of citizenship, which remains pending consideration. He further fairly submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings petitioner No.1 has been permitted to continue in lndia on the strength of a long_ term visa, which is being periodicafly extended from time to time. It is stated that petitioner No.1 continues to pursue appropriate remedies and is making representations before the competent authority with respect to her claim for citizenship. + Per contra, Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government submits that the challenge to the Leave lndia Notice has, by efflux of time, become infructuous inasmuch as petitioner No.1 has admittedly been allowed to remain in lndia on successive long{erm visas. It is further submitted that the pendency of a citizenship application cannot be a ground for seeking relief, since the District Collector has already considered and rejected the application of petitioner No.1 on the ground that she had failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of ordinary residence for a minimum period of seven years, including a continuous period of i2 months immediately preceding the \ 3 application. Moreover, it is contended that the Ministry of Home Affairs has not received any application through the prescribed onlinemodule.Accordingly,itisprayedthatthewritpetitionbe dismissed. I have perused the materials on record'

5. lt is evident from the pleadings that the challenge raised to 6. the Leave lndia Noticedated 18'01'2017' directing petitioner No'1 to leave the country on or before 22'01'2017' has become academicandisnolongeraliveissue.Byeffluxoftime,the cause of action arising from the said notice has lapsed' rendering the relief sought against it infructuous' lnsofar as the application for registration of citizenship is 1. concerned, it has been clarified on behalf of the respondents that the said application was duly considered and reiected by the District co[ector on the ground that petitioner No.1 did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of ordinary residence for seven years' including a continuous period of twelve months immediately preceding the application' as envisaged under Section 5(1Xa) of the Cifizensh ip Act, 1955 read with Rule 6 of the Citizenship -, Rules, 2OOg.lthas fu(her been submifted that no application was b- 1 \ 4 received by the Ministry of Home Affairs through the prescribed online modure, which is the mandatory channer for such applications. g' Having regard to the above factuar and regar position, this court is of the considered view that the principar rerief sought against the Leave rndia Notice no ronger survives for adjudication, and accordinolv the wr'!t petition stands dismlssed as infructuous. However, riberty is reserved to petitioner No.i to pursue such remecies as mair be avaiiabie to her in iaw, incruding the right to approach the Ministry of Home Affairs afresh in accordance with the statutory framework governing apprications for citizenship. No order as to costs Misceilaneous petitions, if any, pending in the petition, shafi stand closed. -7 To loPUCt

1. One CC to SRt 2. One CC to SRt 3. Two CCs to Gp 4. Two CCs to Gp 5. Two CD Cooies BN SA A{2 //TRUE COPYII Sd/.AH.S.GOWRI SHANKAR REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCl SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DJpili SJricitor Generat of tndia FOR HOME. Hioh 9gu{ for the State of Tetangana. [OUTI I F o R R E vE N u E: H is h Co r rt' roi iri;'srri.; ;?'i.38;;.",n.,":' HIGH COURT ATED:111091202s o r-l WP.No.1942 of 2 17 I _.:_-:.. , ,,, _ 1,,. , ;. ) c .J 'i. l, * I 2 trC 2gg i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS OUT COSTS r $ \l \