Anirudh Venkat Sai Ponnala v. 1. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer

4. Sri N. Shankar, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 46 . years, .O"q. Pepltty Commissioner,'tir"te No.i, Kapra, Glitvlc, Hyderabad, Rachakonda District, Telangana R4 impleaded as per C.O.dt-21.11-2025 in lA No'212025' ...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 pleased to issue writ order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamas declare the action of the Respondents in not permitting the Petitioner to travel out of lndia as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Section 3(2) of the lmmigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 rlw Rule 5 of the lmmigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 and Petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and to consequently direct the 7 Respondents to immediately permit the Petitioner to travel out of lndia in view of the Petitioner's valid visa expiring on December 8,2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to complete the procedural formalities and grant exit-permit to the Petitioner by considering Petitioners Exit Permit Application (bearing Application lD No. 300823R1 1U1 U) afresh, which was previously closed without assigning any reasons, expeditiously within 2 weeks. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. PRANATHI KARUTURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA The Court made the following: ORDER : 1 wp-35056_2025 NB(, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUS NAGESH WRIT No.35056 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner, Anirudh Venkat Sai Ponnala, aged 29 years and a citizen of the United States of America residing temporarily at 302, Krishnaveni Acropolis, Plot Nos. 146 and 147, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad- 500033, states that he entered India on 31.12.2019 intending a temporary stay, but found himself compelled to remain in India and could not return to the United States during the COVID-l9 pandemic. The loss of his father in 2017 had already placed family responsibilities on him at a young age, and his mother,, a single parent, required his support. He remained in India throughout this period, including to assist with his sister's marriage, always retying on his valid visa, and to the best of his knowledge, complying with all requirements of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Bureau of lmmigration. When international travel resumed in 2022 and he attempted to leave lndia, he was stopped at the airport by Respondent No. 2 during a routine immigration check and informed that because he had remained for more than 180 continuous days, he could not depart unless he first obtained an exit permit from Respondent No. 1, even though his l0-year visa did not stipulate any maximum stay limit of 180 days. l.l Acting immediately, the petitioner applied online for an exit permit via the e-FRRO portal under Application ID No. 0911225008IP dated 14.12.2022. This "lst Exit Permit Application," submitted in full compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Ministry of External Affairs and Bureau of Immigration, was abruptly closed by Respondent No. 1 without any reason or communication. After several months of uncertainty, he again apptied through the same portal, filing a second request under Application ID No. 300823R1IUIU dated 30.08.2023. In this "2nd Exit Permit Application," he \ :i 2 N8l( uploaded ever)'required document and paid the prescribed fee ofRs.50,000/- via the SBI e-Gateway on 06.09.2023, acknowledged under Reference ID

0418630308637. Yet this second application also remained pending without explanation. On 27.09.2024, he sent a follow-up email to Respondents I and 2, confirming that the Rs. 50,000/- payment had been made, providing the reference ID, and requesting the status of the 2nd Exit Permit Application; this too elicited no response. Ultimately, he discovered that both applications had been marked "Closed" on the e-FRRO portal, with no notice, explanation, deficiency memo, or opportunity to correct any alleged shortcoming.

1.2 '[he petitioner states that Section 3(2) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 and Rule 5 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 allow refusal of permission to depart India only under specific circumstances-such as when a court requires a person's presence, when they suffer from diseases dangerous to public health, when departure may harm relations with a foreign state, when the Central Govemrnent issues a specific order, or when an immigration officer reasonably believes that such departure is against public interest and subsequently reports it to the Central Govemment. Rule 15 of the Immigration and Foreigners Rules, 2025, he asserts, merely requires a foreigner to "inform" the Registration Officer when leaving India or changing addresses, and nowhere requires prior permission. He therefore states that he has fulfilled all legal requirements: he holds a valid passport and visa, he has no information that any authorized agency requires his presence in India, and he is unaware of any order that could justi$ preventing his departure.

1.3 'fhe petitioner further states that a politically motivated case was filed against him in 2021. when he went to clear overgrown bushes and level family property in Sriram Nagar Housing Colony, Kapra, Ranga Reddy ? 3 wp_35056_2025 NBl(,I District-admeasuring 1,759.06 sq. yards and bearing Plot Nos. 44 and 44A in Survey Nos. 459 and 460 under Block No. 06, purchased by his maternal grandfather under Sale Deed Document No. 370212012 dated 09.11 .2012- certain local individuals, allegedly acting at the instance of a corporator, lodged a complaint resulting in FIR No. l5l/2021 dated 25.02.2021 under Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC (the latter alleging damage of only Rs. 50/-) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. A chargesheet was filed on 25.02.2022 which was taken on file as C.C. No. 794 of 2022,later renumbered as C.C.No.323 of 2024 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri (for short, 'the trial Court'). The petitioner contends that the dispute is purely civil in nature and concerns boundaries and title, that he has never acted with dishongst intention, and that the allegations are baseless. He notes that in CRLP No. 2856 of 2023, this Court, by order dated 13.09.2023, set aside the cognizance order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. It is the petitioner's contention that no order or direction was issued in this matterrestricting his travel.

1.4 It is alleged that the Respondents' refusal to process his exit permit is arbitrary non-speaking, and violative of natural justice, as such action of the respondents does not have any statutory basis and it deprives him of his constitutional liberty. He contends that he has never been informed of any such basis; he has received no notice from the Civil Authority (appointed under Notification S.O. 3989(E) dated 01.09.2025 as the Superintendent of Police or DCP) and does not know why the Respondents rely on information that has never been disclosed to him.

1.5 The petitioner states that he has always cooperated with authorities, has deep family ties in India, and poses no risk. Yet the unexplained "Closure" of both his applications on the e-FRRO portal, .'"lt 4 wp_35056_2025 NBK, J combined with the absence of any avenue for in-person clarification due to the online application process, has left him without a n:medy and given his Indian Tourist Visa expiring on 08.12.2025, he prays {br a direction to the respondent-authorities to issue exit permit to him to travel to USA. 2. Mr. N. tlhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, based on the written instructions, received from the []oreigners Regional Registration Officer, BOl-Hyderabad, would contend that the petitioner attempted to depart India on 09. rL.2022 through RGI Airport, Hyderabad, and he was offloaded for overstay and instructed to obtain Exit permit.

2.1 He first applied for an Exit Permit on 14. 12.2022 via Application No. TS0201843922 (Application tD O9|L225008IP). Routine checks showed he was an accused in FIR No. I 5l/2021 dated 25.02.2021 under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC, and Section 3 of the pDpp Act ,cf p.s. Kushaiguda, Rachakonda. Clearance was requested from the SHO, Kushaiguda, through Memo No. 2/ITRROIHYDILN2O22-2374 dated 20.12.2022. In response, the SHO, by letter dated 20.12.2022, stated that the petitioner had been issued summons in C.C. No. 794 of 2022 by the trial Court, and requested that no Exit Permit be granted without an NOC from the concemed police/court. Accordingly, the application was closed.

2.2 The petitioner applied again on 30.08.2023 through Application No.TS0201546523 (Application ID 300923R1lutu), and rhe FRR9 offrce sought an NOC from the DCp, Markajgiri zone, tluough Memos No. 3/FRRO/HYD /LNz022-r769 dated 07.09.207,3 and No. 3/FRRo/rrYD/LN2o22-2173 dated 07.11.2023. As no reply was received, the second application was also closed. 2'3 It is stated that under Para 5 of the Immigration and Foreigners order, 2025, a foreigner may be refused departure if required by any court or 5 wp_35056_2025 NBK, J if restricted by an order of law-enforcement agencies. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted an Exit Permit until the necessary NOC is received from the concerned police/court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. Perused the record.

4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner holds a Passport of USA, and he entered India in December 20[9, and could not return to USA due to travel restrictions on account of COVID- 19. A perusal of the nature of allegations against the petitioner is that he was involved in a case (i.e., FIR No.l5l of 2021 of P.S. Kushaiguda) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC, and Section 3 of PDPP Act, and the police have filed charge sheet which was taken on file by the leamed trial Court, as C.C.No .794 of 2022 (renumbered as C-C.No-323 of 2024)' A quash petition was filed by the petitioner, in Cr1.P.No.2856 of 2023, seeking quash of the C.C., and this Coun by Order dated 13.09-2023 has made an observation in the Criminal Petition set aside the cognizance order and remitted for reconsideration. The offences atleged against the petitioner though relate to criminal trespass, it is the specific contention of the petitioner, that he went to clear the bushes that have grown in his own land (the land that was purchased by his father under a registered sale deed dated 09.11 .2012),and that he has no intention to trespass into anyone's property. It is also the petitioner's contention that his father had expired in 2017 and he shouldered the responsibilities from a very young age, and he came to India to support his mother and sister, and he has his family ties in India, and that a \ false case was foisted against him.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, in Criminal Petition No.285 6 of 2023, this Court has set aside the Docket t 0 6 wp_350s6_2025 \ NBX,' Order dated 31.03.2022 whereunder cognizance has been taken by the leamed Magistrate in C.C.No.794 of 2022 (renumbered as C.C-No.323 of 2024), and remanded the matter afresh to the trial Court to go through the charges alleged and only upon being satisfied that the Police have made out a prima facie case against the accused for such offences committed by the accused, the trial Court shall take cognizance of such offences and proceed with the matter further. The C.C. appears to have been renumbered after that, butno material is placed before this Court to conclude that there is an order from the Court restraining the petitioner's travel from India.

6. Further, the offences under Section 447 IPC (criminal trespass) and Section 427 IPC (mischief) though cognizable, thel' are bailable and compoundable offences. Furthermore, the cognizance of the charges itself was set aside by this Court in Crl.P.No.2856 of 2023. ln that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, however, on the following condition:

6., The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the trial Courtstating that he shall ensure that he is duly represented in C.C.No.794 of 2022 (renumbered as C.C.No.323 ol 20241 through his counsel on every date of adjournment; ?nd in case the trial Court requires his personal appearance for recording evidence on a particular date of hearing, he shall personally appear in the case on such date, and cooperate with the trial.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall stand 9!o:s4, - MALLIKA SISTANT RE RJUNA RAO //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Foreig ners Regional Registra of Hom erabad, Bureau of Hvd e Affairs, Governm nt of india, Sard ar Vallabhai Near GMR lmmigration, MinistrY Patel Bol OCR Co mplex, Shamshabad-Paha dishareef Road, Townshi p, MamidiPallY, Shamshabad, Telangana -5012:18. "d fi :fi 2' The rmmioration officer, Bureau_of rmmigralio1, sgrdar Vailabhai pater Bor ati:i:ttr'f5;"?l?giliy.,#ffi ,^,",i-ffi n-'rownsnip, 3' The civir Authority,_office of Deputy commissioner of porice, Rachakonda fi:Uil:.,:ffi:n5l:i ffiTft rr,r,rr.iigiii d;,;"Eiii'rr",, v"i,p"ri,i,.iriredmet, '.P'",ff

4. ONC CC tO MS. PRANATHI KARUTURI, AdVOCAIE [OPUC] 5' one cc to sRr sRrNrvASA RAo 6. one cc to sRt N BHUJANGA qg, DEpury solrcrroR GENERAL oF tNDtA, Hish court ror tne siire;i t;E";;J* hrilr"bad [opUcJ 7' Iffi"Sff.|""ffi FoR HotME, Hish court ror the state or reransana at Advocate topucl 'ACHWA,

8. Two CD Copies BSR BS ?+ ."-t.,...i*Ji***:'E:+;;;;;' ;,j ":. , " t -j t,,,t;rntu, ..:,*t#&F$&S** tt' r -- ;*- HIGH COURT DATED :O4t12t2O2S \ ORDER WP.No.35056 of 2O2S / cc TODAY I , 1'riE S () C) il [ [E[ 7t75 * :-- t I-)A'l' r1 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS F Ll ( b i