$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13041/2025 AMIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Khurana (DHCLSC), Mr. Shiven Khurana, Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley (CGSC) Mr. Akshay Sharma (Adv.)Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi (Adv.) Mr. Varun Pratap Singh (Adv.) Mr. Yogya Bhatia (Adv.) ASA Padma Kumar (FRRO) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 26.02.2026 1. In paragraph nos.8 to 10 of the counter affidavit, the following position has been taken by the respondent: “8. Without prejudice to the above, the Respondents deem it essential to highlight the background pertaining to grant of visa, blacklisting and upgradation of blacklisting of the Petitioner's wife- Ms. Zakhro Solieva. She had arrived in India on the strength of an Uzbek Passport No. FA0634295 and Indian medical Visa bearing no. VK742044, which was valid till 25.04.2021. Her Visa was last extended by the FRRO till 21.01.2022. Subsequently,, after admittedly overstaying for approximately two years after expiry of her above visa, the foreign national had applied for visa service with the FRRO. On the basis of her application, she was granted an exit permit on 25.01.2024 to depart from Indina on or before 07.02.2024. On the basis of the exit permit she departed back to her native country on 05.02.2024. However, due to her overstay of two years, she was blacklisted under the appropriate category as per the relevant This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 13:11:41 blacklisting guidelines. Ms. Zakhro's blacklist retention period was initially upto 06.02.2025. 9. While processing her blacklisting proposal it was also revealed that the Petitioner's wife was also using forged Visa paper in the jurisdiction of FRRO/Kolkata, which falsely reflected her Visa validity till 30.08.2022, while her Visa was last extended by the FRRO till31.01.2022'. A copy of· forged VISA document used by Ms. Zakhro is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/1. 10. It is essential to highlight that Petitioner's wife had provided the aforementioned forged Visa document at the Lemon Tree Hotel, Kolkata on 26.07.2022 for the Hotel to fill out 'C' Form details. The Visa document appeared suspicious and the information related to this said document reached to the OIC, Illegal Migrant Cell-Kolkata, who wrote to the office of FRRO-Kolkata vide letter dated-29.07.2022 to confirm the records of the visa extensions & ascertain authenticity of the document. Upon receiving this information, FRRO-Kolkata office enquired into the matter and requested the office of Respondent No. 2 vide their e-mail dated 01.08.2022 for checking authenticity of the visa service document being used by the Petitioner's wife which·reflected visa validity till 30.08.2022.The office of Respondent No. 2 had verified the said document as a fake one, and apprised the same to the office of FRRO Kolkata vide email dated 03.08.2022. Therefore, a discreet LOC dated 26.08.2022 was issued in this regard at the behest of FRRO-Kolkata with the remarks "THE SUBJECT IS USING FORGED RC/RPIVISA EXTENSION DOCUMENT BEARING NO. DL02/VEB/UZB/599712021 (VALIDITY TILL ILLEGALLY. THE SUBJECT NEEDS TO BE DETAINED ON DETECTION''. A copy of form filled by Ms. Zakhro at Lemon Tree Hotel, Kolkata is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/2. A copy of letter dated 29.07.2022 issued by OIC, Illegal Migrant Cell- Kolkata, to the office ofFRRO-Kolkata, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/3. A copy of emails dated 01.08.2022 issued by the office of FRRO-Kolkata to the office of Respondent No.2 and reply to the same dated 03.08.2022 issued by the office of Respondent No.2 to the office of FRRO- Kolkata, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/4 (Colly.).” 2. The Court on 27.01.2026, noted the submission made by Mr. Sandeep Khurana, learned cousenl apeparing for the petitioner and directed the respondents to take instructions as to whether, under the peculiar circumstances, the debarment can be reduced to a lesser period of time. 3. Mr. Rohan Jaitley, learned counsel appearing for the respondents This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 13:11:41 points out the extant guidelines for blacklisting of foreign nationals. He ubmits that (i) foreigners have who used forged or fraudulently obtained travel/documents, even for the purpose of obtaining Visa to enter India or (ii) who have been deported for using forged or fraudulently obtained travel documents, post visa or without visa and or (iii) foreigners who have found enrolled in violation of the terms of Visa are placed in blacklist Grade A category. The said Grade of blaclisiting is permanent in nature and the subject remains under the umbrella of security agencies during the said period. According to him, under the extant guidelines, the period of debarment cannot be reduced. He, however, submits that the petitioner shall be entitled to seek review after 10 years from the date of debarment. 4. Under these circumstances, the Court is unable to accede to the request made in the instant petition as no mandamus can be issued against the State in violation of the existing rules and regulations. The petition is, therefore, failed and the same is accordingly dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 26, 2026/P/AMG This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 13:11:41