Telangana High Court
Hussein Ali Kareem Al-Kweshee vs Union Of India on 10 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 27305 OF 2025
10.04.2026
Between:
Hussein Ali Kareem
Rep. by GPA Holder Sri Hafiz Mohd. Abdul Jaleel
..... Petitioner
And
Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi & others
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioner claims to be an Iraqi national holding a
valid Iraqi Passport bearing No. A20490787 and an employee of
M/s Across the Clouds Medical Tourism, an Iraq-based Medical
Tourism Company having ties with many Indian Hospitals. It is
stated, the said company has been very instrumental in
boosting foreign reserves of our country with a regular flow of
patients from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen etcetera to India.
Petitioner who is well-versed with Kurdish language has done
marvelous job in helping the patients who arrived at Hyderabad
for treatment.
2
1.1. It is stated, petitioner arrived on Student Visa to
pursue Spoken English and Computer course in 2015 and
thereafter, pursued Bachelor’s degree from Osmania University,
Hyderabad, India, Bachelor of Pharmacy (B-Pharmacy) from
2016 to 2020. During his stay as a student, Petitioner is stated
to have complied with all the Visa conditions imposed upon him
including Registration within 14 days of arrival in India, and
there was never any adverse remark from any of the authorities
in India. He travelled India on many occasions and always
adhered to the Visa endorsements/conditions of Registration on
arrival in India and details of Passports and Visas issued to the
Petitioner were furnished in the affidavit.
1.2. It is further stated, on his last visit to India, he
arrived on the strength of B1-Business Visa on 08.10.2024
which had endorsement stating:
“EXEMPTED FROM POLICE REPORTING
NOT VALID FOR PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED AND CONTONMENT AREAS
BUSINESS PURPOSE ONLYREGISTRATION REQUIRED IF CONTINUOUS STAY IN INDIA EXCEEDS 60
DAYS”
After arriving India, he got the Registration with Respondent No.
3 vide Application dated 12.10.2024 i.e., after 4 days of arrival
in India; he complied with the Visa endorsement/condition of
Registration within 60 days of arrival in India with the FRRO,
3
Hyderabad which shows his bona fides, hence, there was no
violation of any visa condition imposed upon him.
1.3. Petitioner is stated to have followed due process of
law before departing from India; he approached the 3rd
respondent on 27.03.2025 and applied for Exit Permit, which
was allowed after payment of Rs. 10,000/- against non-
registration fee. As soon as he obtained Exit Permit, he departed
from India on 28.03.2025.
1.4. While so, petitioner is stated to have applied for
Employment Visa vide Application dated 06.04.2025 to the
Indian Consulate/Embassy in Iraq, however, he has not
received any communication from the Indian Embassy even
after passing of more than four months. He therefore, is stated
to have visited Indian Consulate/Embassy in Iraq in June 2025
where he came to know that due to violation of Visa condition of
non-registration within stipulated period with the FRRO,
Hyderabad on his previous visit to India on Business Visa, his
present Employment visa could not be processed.
1.5. Due to increase in foreign patients flow in
Hyderabad and urgent requirement of Kurdish language
interpreter, Petitioner’s employer in India, Dr. Osama Ahmed,
Head of International Business Development, Apollo Hospitals
4
Enterprises Limited wrote to the Joint Secretary, Foreigners
Division, Ministry of Home Affairs and to the Director,
Foreigners Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, and also to Indian
Consulate in Baghdad, Iraq, Ministry of External Affairs vide
e mail dated 25.06.2025 explaining the bona fides and urgent
requirement of Petitioner in India and undertaking his full
responsibility in abiding and adhering to the Visa conditions
imposed upon Petitioner in future; as the said representation
did not evoke any response, petitioner addressed Indian
Consulate in Baghdad, Iraq and the 3rd respondent on
11.08.2025 and 25.06.2025 requesting to issue Employment
Visa, but it could not yield any result. Hence, the Writ
Petition.
2. Respondents 2 and 3 filed counter contending that
petitioner – an Iraq national (passport No. A20490787) last
arrived India on 08.10.2024 through Rajeev Gandhi
International Airport, Hyderabad on the strength of Business
Visa valid from 08.09.2024 to 07.09.2025 and departed from
India on 28.03.2025. Petitioner was blacklisted in accordance
with the Foreigners Act, 1946, Foreigners Order, 1948 and
MHAs. Blacklist guidelines by the FRRO, Hyderabad for one
year (retention period ending in April, 2026) for violating visa
5
conditions, hence, he would not be issued Indian visa until the
retention period is over.
2.1. It is further stated, as per Business Visa, petitioner
was mandated to apply for registration with the jurisdictional
FRRO if continuous stay in India exceeds 60 days by furnishing
all the necessary documents to support his stay in India. He
applied for registration on 12.10.2024 within 60 days of arrival,
however, he was informed over the mobile / e-mail id to furnish
required documents; since he failed to do so, his application
was closed on 26.11.2024.
2.2. It is stated, mere submission of Application does
not entitle an applicant with Registration Permit. Registration
Permit is granted only when the on line procedure is completed.
Any input on the basis of which blacklisting is done is
confidential in nature and therefore cannot be provided to
Petitioner in the interest of security and integrity of the country,
however, the same could be produced before this Court in a
sealed cover, if the Court directs so. It is also stated, every
country has a sovereign right to refuse entry into its territory of
any individual whom it may consider undesirable, and entry
into any country’s territory is not a matter of right, even if the
person holds valid visa. The decision to blacklist an individual is
taken on the basis of several considerations and comes under
6
the category of classified information’. Hence, it cannot be
provided to the individuals who are blacklisted.
2.3. Respondents cited the judgment in Randa Chehab
v. Union of India 1, wherein the learned Single Judge
considered a challenge to deportation/blacklisting of a foreign
national who had entered India on a business/tourist visa. The
Single Judge reiterated the settled constitutional principle that
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised only where a
legal right is shown to have been violated; in the absence of any
legally cognizable right, a writ would not lie. The Court expressly
held that “a Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India only where there is violation of right.
In the absence of any right, a writ cannot be issued’.
2.4. According to these respondents, the present Writ
Petition is misconceived and not maintainable in law. Petitioner
is a foreign national who, under the statutory framework
governing immigration and entry into India, does not possess
any vested or enforceable right to enter or remain in the
country. Regulation of entry, stay and departure of foreigners is
a sovereign function of the Union of India exercised under the
erstwhile Foreigners Act, 1946; the power to permit, regulate or
restrict entry of a foreign national is a matter of executive
1
2023 SCC Online Del 8071
7
satisfaction, founded on considerations of national security,
public order and other sovereign interests and cannot be
claimed as a matter of legal right.
3. Heard Dr. J. Viplav Babu, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri K.V. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for
respondents.
4. From a perusal of the material on record as also the
counter affidavit at para 5, it is evident that petitioner applied
within 60 days of arrival, however, he was required over phone
/ e mail id furnished in Visa Application to submit the
necessary documents. As he failed to furnish the same, his
Application was closed on 26.11.2024. According to
respondents, despite receiving information on closure of Visa
Application, petitioner failed to re-apply on line. He applied for
Exit permit on 15.03.2025 (beyond the stay stipulation of 60
days) and he was granted permit by charging Rs.10,000/- (non-
registration penalty) and post his departure on 28.03.2025, he
was black-listed in accordance with the Foreigners Act, 1946,
Foreigners Order, 1948 and MHAs Blacklist guidelines for a
period of one year which is going to end in April, 2026.
5. In view of the same, without going into the merits of
the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this
8
Writ Petition with liberty to petitioner to re-apply for Visa as
soon as the retention period is over.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of with
liberty to petitioner to re-apply for VISA immediately after
retention period of one year is over. On such application,
respondents are directed to consider the same and pass
appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. No costs.
7. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
————————————-
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
10th April 2026
ksld