IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16490 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Zehra Keskin ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Arjun Lal, Mr. Vidur Kapur and Ms. Tamanna Basoli, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. __________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Arjun Lall, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the petitioner stands acquitted by competent court of law, yet her application for grant of exit permit is not being considered. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, the State has filed short reply/affidavit under the signatures of Mr. Vijay Pal 2 Singh, Assistant Foreigners Regional Registration Officer in Foreigner Regional Registration Office (FRRO), East Block- VIII, Level-II, Sector-1, R.K. Puram, Delhi, under the Bureau of Immigration (BOI), Ministry of Home Affairs (Government of India), Delhi-110066, wherein at para 12, it has been stated as under: "12. That it is further submitted that the foreign nationals cannot claim a visa from the Central Govt. as a matter of right as per their convenience. The said matter is the sovereign function of the Central Govt. of India and a visa is meant only for those foreign nationals who intend to arrive/stay/depart in/from India legally and follow the Indian laws and rules. The foreign nationals who violate visa rules and norms are also liable to face penal consequences under The Immigration and Foreigner's Act, 2025 besides their expulsion from India. The office is not bound to disclose the reasons for grant/rejection of a visa to a foreign national. In view of the above- mentioned facts, it is submitted that the action taken by the officials of the Respondents is bona-fide in keeping with the existing laws and regulations. The petitioner may be directed to approach the FRRO Delhi office so that her repatriation process can be initiated." 3. Careful perusal of aforesaid reply filed by the respondents reveals that the petitioner can approach the FRRO Delhi so that her repatriation process is initiated. 4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India fairly states that as soon as the petitioner approaches the aforesaid office, needful shall be done expeditiously. 3 5. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the respondents, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach respondent No. 2 within a period of two days for redressal of her grievance, which in turn shall be decided by competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 6. List for compliance on 15.10.2026. September 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge