IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Writ Petition No. / 2024
CARMEN OLENDE HENNIG &
ANR …
PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA & ORS. …
RESPONDENTS
INDEX
Sr. Particulars Pag
no e
no.
Synopsis and points for determination
1. Memo of Writ Petition with
supporting Affidavit
2. Exhibit A colly - Copies of
extensions of the E-Visas granted to
the Petitioners.
3. Exhibit B Colly - Copies of the
papers and proceedings in
Matrimonial Petition No. 60/2024
4. Exhibit C Colly - Copies of the E-
mails dated 26.09.2024
5. Exhibit D - Copy of the call letter
dated 01.10.2024
6. Exhibit E - Copy of the tickets
booked by the Petitioners for the
above dates
7. Exhibit F - Copy of the e-mail dated
11.09.2024
8. Vakalatnama
Porvorim, Goa
Oct __, 2024 Adv. for the
Petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Writ Petition No. / 2024
CARMEN OLENDE HENNIG & …
ANR PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA & ORS. …
RESPONDENTS
SYNOPSIS
The Petitioner No. 1 is a German
National residing at the address
mentioned in the cause title herein
above, and a permanent resident of
Germany. The Petitioner No. 2 is
the daughter of Petitioner No. 1.
17.06.2020 Upon obtaining the requisite
permissions from Hon’ble Court of
Civil Judge Junior Division and
JMFC, the marriage of Petitioner
No. 1 and Mr. Ashley Coutinho was
registered in the Office of Civil
Registrar, Canacona, in marriage
Registration No. 80/2020.
15.10.2023 The Petitioner No. 1 applied for
Registration as an Overseas Citizen
of India on bearing Application No.
INDM00CEEN23 with the Office of
Respondent No. 3 FRRO Mumbai.
The said Mr. Ashley Coutinho filed
a Matrimonial Petition for Divorce
before the Hon’ble Court Civil
Judge Senior Division at Margao
vide Matrimonial Petition No.
60/2024 which was dismissed as
withdrawn by the Mr. Ashley.
26.09.2024 The Petitioner No. 1 received an E-
mail from the Respondent No. 3
stating the Application No.
060224Y70WBY has been rejected /
cancelled. The Petitioner No. 1
received a similar E-mail is respect
of Petitioner No. 2 wherein it was
stated that the Applicants mother
was involved in marriage of
convenience.
01.10.2024 The Petitioner thereafter received
two call letters, one for each
Petitioner, requesting the
Petitioners to remain present in the
Office of Respondent No. 4 on
05.10.2024 along with confirmed
flight tickets for return to the home
country.
05.10.2024 The Petitioners attended the Office
of Respondent No. 4. At the time of
the said visit, the Petitioners were
informed that the Office of the
Respondent No. 4 has received
communication from the Office of
Respondent No. 3 that the Visas
granted to the Petitioners have
been cancelled. The Petitioners
were shocked to get this
information and could not
comprehend how such action could
be taken unilaterally without any
fault on the part of the Petitioners.
Accordingly, the Petitioners
inwarded a letter in the Office of
the Respondent No. 4 and also
addressed an E-mail to the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 attaching
the said letter and setting out the
difficulties faced by the Petitioners
on account of such illegal and
arbitrary act.
The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have
failed to provide for any
opportunity of hearing before
cancelling the said Visas of the
Petitioners.
Hence the present Writ Petition.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether the actions of Respondent Nos. 3 and
4 are against the principles of Natural
Justice?
2. Whether the actions of the Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 in cancelling the E-Visas granted to the
Petitioners suffers from total non-application
of mind?
3. Such other and further grounds as may be
raised.
ACTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. Constitution of India
2. Citizenship Act, 1995
3. Citizenship Rules, 2009
Porvorim, Goa
October __, 2024 Adv. for the Petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
Writ Petition No. /2024
IN THE MATTER OF
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE
21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION
14(1) AND 14(2) OF THE
CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1995
AND
IN THE MATTER OF RULE
32(2) OF THE CITIZENSHIP
RULES, 2009
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
ARBITRARY ACTIONS OF THE
RESPONDENTS IN NOT
HEARING THE PETITIONER
BEFORE CANCELLING THE E-
VISA.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF GROSS
VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE
1. CARMEN OLENDE
HENNIG
Aged 49 years, German
National, holder of
Passport bearing No.
C4JK91JT3, presently
residing at H No.372/B,
Muthal, Sadolxem,
Canacona-Goa
2. LUNA CIEL KAROLINE
MARGOT OLENDE
HENNIG
Aged 15 years, German
national, holder of
Passport bearing No.
C4JK7NN1X, presently
residing at H No.372/B,
Muthal, Sadolxem,
Canacona- Go a through
her mother and guardian
– Petitioner No. 1
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. STATE OF GOA
Through the Chief
Secretary, High Court of
Bombay at Goa.
2. UNION OF INDIA
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi, Delhi.
3. THE FOREIGNERS’
REGIONAL
REGISTRATION
OFFICE
Annex-II bldg, 3rd floor,
Badruddin Tayyabji Marg,
behind St.Xavier College,
C.S.T., Mumbai – 400001
4. THE FOREIGNERS’
REGIONAL
REGISTRATION
OFFICE
Police Headquarters,
Panaji - Goa
…
RESPONDENTS
( All Above are registered addresses)
TO,
THE HONOURABLE THE
CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER
COMPANION JUDGES OF
THIS HONOURABLE HIGH
COURT.
THIS HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a German National,
holding her Passport bearing No. C4JK91JT3
which is valid till 15.12.2031. The Petitioner
No. 2 is a minor and is the daughter of
Petitioner No. 1 from her first marriage. The
Petitioner No. 2 is also a German National
holding her Passport bearing No.
C4JK7NN1X. The Petitioner No.2 is
represented by the Petitioner No.1 who is her
mother and natural guardian.
2. The Respondent No 1 is the State of Goa,
through the Chief Secretary. The Respondent
No. 2 is the Union of India through the
Ministry of Home Affairs. The Respondent No.
3 is the FRRO, Mumbai, which is the Regional
Office that is concerned with the registration
and regulation of foreigners living in India
while Respondent No. 4 is the FRRO Goa,
from whom the Petitioners have received
communications.
3. The Petitioners prefer the present Writ
Petition being aggrieved with the illegal and
arbitrary cancellation of their E-Visas which
has been communicated to them by the
Officers of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on
their personal visit to their Office.
The challenge is on the ground that the
cancellation of the E-Visa of the Petitioners is
in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice since the Petitioners were not granted
any opportunity of hearing or representation
before such cancellation.
The challenge is further on the ground
that the E-Visas of the Petitioners is cancelled
purportedly relying on a representation made
by the husband of Petitioner No. 1 who is
presently not in cordial terms with her.
The challenge is also on the ground that
the actions of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in
cancelling the E-Visas granted to the
Petitioners suffers from total non-application
of mind and is causing immeasurable
prejudice to the Petitioners.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the present
Writ Petition are set out herein below:
4. The Petitioners state that the Petitioner No. 1
has been visiting India since 2005 at regular
intervals pursuant to the Visas granted by the
Indian Consulate for the respective periods
for the Petitioners’ stay. During the
Petitioners’ residence in India, the Petitioner
No. 1 fell in love with one Ashley Mathew
Coutinho. It is pertinent to note that Mr.
Ashley was fully aware of the Petitioner
No.1’s status as a ‘divorcee’ and further about
the Petitioner No. 2 being the daughter of
Petitioner No. 1 from her previous marriage.
5. The Petitioners state that in furtherance of
the relationship with Mr. Ashley it was
mutually decided to get married. Since the
Petitioner No. 1 was a German National, the
appropriate permission was sought from the
Hon’ble Court of Civil Judge Junior Division
and JMFC. Pursuant thereto, the marriage
was registered in the Office of Civil Registrar,
Canacona, under marriage Registration No.
80/2020 on 17.06.2020.
6. The Petitioner No. 1 applied for Registration
as an Overseas Citizen of India on 15.10.2023
bearing Application No. INDM00CEEN23 with
the Office of Respondent No. 3 FRRO
Mumbai. The said Application was filed along
with all the necessary documents. The
Petitioners crave leave to refer and rely upon
the said Application along with supporting
documents as and when necessary.
7. The Petitioner No. 1 was granted
extension of
her existing Visa bearing No.
VGA0200109522 which was originally valid
till 22.03.2024. Subsequently, the same was
extended till 22.03.2025. Likewise, the
extension of
Petitioner No. 2 was granted her
E-Visa bearing No. VGA0200144422 which
till
was originally valid 28.11.2022 was first
extended till 28.11.2023 and thereafter
extended till 28.11.2024. Both the said E-
Visas were multiple entry Visas.
8. The Petitioners state that their entry and
residence in the State of Goa was pursuant to
a valid Visa issued and thereafter extended by
the Respondent No. 3. Hereto annexed and
marked as “Exhibit A Colly” are the copies of
extensions of the E-Visas granted to the
Petitioners.
9. The Petitioners state that in the meantime on
account of the aggressive and hostile
behaviour of the said Ashley Coutinho, the
marital relationship between the Petitioner
No. 1 and the said Ashley were strained. The
said Ashley wants to now get rid of the
Petitioners and is now making false and
frivolous representations to the Authorities.
10. The said Ashley had also filed a
matrimonial Petition for Divorce before the
Hon’ble Court Civil Judge Senior Division at
Margao, being Matrimonial Petition No. 60
/2024. The said Petition has been dismissed as
withdrawn by the said Ashley. Hereto annexed
and marked as “Exhibit B Colly’’ is the copy
of the papers and proceedings in Matrimonial
Petition No. 60/2024.
11. The Petitioner No. 1 received an E-mail from
the Respondent No. 3 stating the Application
No. 060224Y70WBY has been rejected /
cancelled. It has been further stated in the E-
mail that “The Applicant is involved in
marriage of convenience with one Ashley and
accordingly as approved by FRRO Mumbai”.
The Petitioner No. 1 received a similar E-mail
is respect of Petitioner No. 2 wherein it was
stated that the Applicants mother was
involved in marriage of convenience. Hereto
annexed and marked as “Exhibit C Colly” are
the copies of the E-mails dated 26.09.2024.
12. It is necessary to note that the
Application numbers mentioned in the said e-
mails are not in terms of the E-visas numbers
mentioned therein. It is therefore clear that
the Application numbers as referred to in the
rejection/cancellation E-mails do not refer to
the E-visas granted to the Petitioners. The
Petitioners apprehend that the said E-mails
are in reference to their E-visas although the
numbers stated therein are not tallying.
13. The Petitioners thereafter received two
call letters, one for each Petitioner, both
dated 01.10.2024 requesting the Petitioners
to remain present in the Office of Respondent
No. 4 on 05.10.2024 along with confirmed
flight tickets for return to the home country.
Hereto annexed and marked as “Exhibit D” is
the copy of the call letter dated 01.10.2024.
[14.] Pursuant to the call letter, the Petitioners
attended the Office of Respondent No. 4. At
the time of the said visit, the Petitioners were
informed that the Office of the Respondent
No. 4 has received communication from the
Office of Respondent No. 3 that the Visas
granted to the Petitioners have been
and n
cancelled o further information and
relief can be granted in that regard. It was
also informed that since the Petitioners’ visas
have been cancelled, the Petitioners would
have to apply for an Exit Permit in order leave
India. The Petitioners were shocked to get
this information and could not comprehend
how such action could be taken unilaterally
without any fault on the part of the
Petitioners. Accordingly, the Petitioners
inwarded a letter in the Office of the
Respondent No. 4 and also addressed an E-
mail to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 attaching
the said letter and setting out the difficulties
faced by the Petitioners on account of such
illegal and arbitrary act. It is pertinent to note
that the Petitioners are scheduled to travel to
Germany on 27.10.2024 to meet Petitioner
No.1’s ailing father and return back to India
on 15.11.2024. The Petitioner s ha ve already
t i
booked the r tickets for the same. Hereto
annexed as “Exhibit __ E” is a copy of the
tickets booked by the Petitioners for the
above dates.
14.[15.] The Petitioners state the Petitioners also
visited Office of Respondent No. 3 in Mumbai
who informed the Petitioners of the same
factual position.
[16.] In the meantime the Petitioner No.1
received another e-mail on 11.09.2024
intimating the Petitioner No.1 that the
Application filed for registration as an OCI has
been cancelled under Rule 32(2) of the
Citizenship; Rules, 2009 read with Section
14(1) and (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Hereto annexed as “Exhibit __ F” is a copy of
the e-mail dated 11.09.2024.
15.[17.] The Petitioners submit that the action on
the part of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in
cancelling the Visa s granted to the Petitioners
unilaterally without affording any opportunity
of hearing is entirely illegal and arbitrary.
16.[18.] The Petitioners submit that the actions
on the part of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
are in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice which mandate that an
opportunity be granted before taking any
adverse action against a person. Cancellation
of Visa already granted is not only harsh but
also prejudicial to the interest of the
Petitioners which would result into their stay
in India being illegal. Such an action could not
have been taken without affording a sufficient
opportunity to the Petitioners to show cause.
17.[19.] The Petitioners submit that the
Petitioners are put in an imbroglio as the
have been
Petitioners not issued any specific
cancellation letter in respect of their E-Visas
except the vague e-mails addressed to the
Petitioners but have been orally informed
about the same. Moreover, the E-mail
received in respect of cancellation / rejection
of their purported Applications mention a
different Application No. and not the
Application Nos. of the Petitioners. As such,
the Petitioners have no other option but to
approach this Hon’ble Court seeking
appropriate relief.
18.[20.] The Petitioners submit that in the event
the E-Visas of the Petitioners are cancelled in
the manner sought to be done, the Petitioners
would have to apply for an Exit Permit and
would not be permitted to re-enter India
despite having been issued a multiple entry E-
Visa. Moreover, the Petitioner No. 2 is
pursuing her studies in the state of Goa and
any such action would ruin her academic year.
19.[21.] The Petitioners submit that the
Petitioners are being severely prejudiced on
account of the above action of Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 and as such are constrained to
approach this Hon’ble court for appropriate
reliefs.
20.[22.] Being aggrieved by the action on the
part of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 of cancelling
the E-Visas which were granted to the
Petitioners, the Petitioners are filing the
present Writ Petition on the following
amongst other grounds which are urged in
alternate and without prejudice to each other:
GROUNDS
a) The Petitioners submit that the
cancellation of the E-Visa of the
Petitioners is in gross violation of
the principles of natural justice since
the Petitioners were not granted any
opportunity of hearing or
representation before such
cancellation;
b) The Petitioners submit that the E-
Visas of the Petitioners is cancelled
purportedly relying on a
representation made by the husband
of Petitioner No. 1 who is presently
not in cordial terms with her;
c) The Petitioners submit that the
actions of the Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 in cancelling the E-Visas
granted to the Petitioners suffers
from total non-application of mind
and is causing immeasurable
prejudice to the Petitioners;
d) The Petitioners submit that the
actions on the part of the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is
prejudicial to the interests of the
Petitioners who already have their
travel schedule booked;
e) The Petitioners submit that the
Petitioner No.2 is a student pursuing
her studies and the actions may
completely prejudice her academic
year;
f) The Petitioner craves leave to urge
such other and further grounds at
the time of hearing.
21.[23.] The Petitioners under the circumstances
are entitled for a writ of certiorari or a writ in
the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for
the records from Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
and upon examining the same quash and set
aside the decision of the Respondent No. 3
and 4 to cancel the E-Visas granted to the
Petitioners (Exhibit A Colly).
22.[24.] The Petitioners are also entitled for a
writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction, commanding the Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 to not take any coercive actions in
respect of the E-Visas of the Petitioners
without granting an opportunity of hearing to
the Petitioners.
23.[25.] The Petitioners state that they have not
received any written communication from the
Respondent No. 3 or 4 in respect of the
cancellation of their E-Visas except the vague
e-mails. Such a decision has been
communicated to them orally during their
visit on 05.10.2024. As such, the Petitioners
are unable to produce on record any such
specific communication except the emails
received by them. Under these circumstances,
the Petitioners are entitled for a stay of any
decision taken by the Respondent No. 3 and 4
to cancel the E-Visas granted to the
Petitioners pending the hearing and final
disposal of the present Writ Petition.
24.[26.] The E-visa of the Petitioner No.2 is
expiring on 28.11.2024 and the Petitioners
state that the necessary procedure for its
renewal would be undertaken. However, the
Petitioners apprehend that on account of the
said cancellations, the Respondent Nos. 3 and
4 would not entertain such Application. It is
therefore necessary that pending the hearing
and final disposal of the present Application,
the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 be directed to
process the Application filed by the
Petitioners in respect of the extension of
Petitioner No.2’s E-visa.
25.[27.] The Petitioners have not filed any other
Petition either in this Honourable Court or in
the Honourable Supreme Court of India
regarding the subject matter of the present
petition.
26.[28.] The Petitioners state that in view of the
peculiar facts and circumstances and the
reliefs prayed for in the above petition, the
Petitioner has no efficacious legal remedy
available.
27.[29.] The Petitioners crave leave of this
Hon’ble Court to amend the petition by
adding or deleting the paragraphs and
grounds as and when found necessary.
28.[30.] The cause of action for filing this petition
has arisen in Goa, as such, this Honourable
Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide
the present petition.
29.[31.] The Petitioner has not received any
notice of Caveat application.
30.[32.] Appropriate Court fees are paid herewith.
The Petitioners therefore pray that this
Honourable Court be pleased to:
PRAYERS
a) Grant a writ of certiorari or a writ in
the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction
calling for the records from
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and upon
examining the same quash and set
aside the decision of the Respondent
No. 3 and 4 to cancel the E-Visas
granted to the Petitioners
b) Grant a writ of mandamus or a writ
in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to not take
any coercive actions in respect of
the E-Visas of the Petitioners
without granting an opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioners;
c) Stay any decision taken by the
Respondent No. 3 and 4 to cancel
the E-Visas granted to the
Petitioners pending the hearing and
final disposal of the present Writ
Petition;
d) Direct the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
to process the Application, if any,
filed by the Petitioners in respect of
the extension of Petitioner No.2’s E-
visa pending the hearing and final
disposal of the present Writ Petition;
e) Grant ex-parte / interim / ad-interim
relief in terms of prayer clause (c)
and (d) above;
f) Grant such other and further reliefs,
as this Honourable Court deems fit
and proper.
Porvorim, Goa.
October ___, 2024
Petitioner No.1 and
guardian of Petitioner No.2
Adv. for the Petitioners
VERIFICATION
I, Carmen Olende, 49 Years of age, resident of
Canacona - Goa, German National, the Petitioner
No.1 above named and guardian of Petitioner No.
2, do hereby on solemn affirmation verify that the
contents of paragraphs 1 to 15, and 24 (part) and
26 (part) of the Writ Petition, which have been
explained to me in, are true as per my own
knowledge and the contents of the remaining
paragraphs 16 to 30, and 24 (part) and 26 (part)
which also have been explained to me, are based
on the legal submissions and/or inferences of
facts., which I believe to be true.
Porvorim, Goa.
October ____, 2024.
DEPONENT
Identified by me:
Advocate for the Petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Writ Petition No. / 2024
CARMEN OLENDE & ANR …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA & ORS. …
RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Carmen Olende, resident of Canacona – Goa, the
Petitioner No. 1 above named and guardian of
Petitioner No. 2, do hereby on solemn affirmation
state and submit as under:
1. I say that I am filing the accompanying Writ
Petition before this Honourable Court for reliefs
more particularly set out therein. I say that I have
been explained the contents of the said Writ
Petition in a language known to me. I crave leave
to refer to and rely upon the averments made
therein as if the same is specifically averred herein
for the sake of brevity.
2. I say that the annexures to this Writ Petition
are the photocopies of the respective originals /
certified copies.
3. I say that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 15,
and 24 (part) and 26 (part) of the Writ Petition,
which have been explained to me, are true as per
my own knowledge and the contents of the
remaining paragraphs 16 to 3027, and 24 (part)
and 26 (part) which also have been explained to
me, are based on the legal submissions and/or
inferences of facts., which I believe to be true.
4. I say that the contents of the aforesaid paras 1
to 3 of this affidavit are true to my own knowledge.
Solemnly affirmed at Porvorim -
Goa on this ___ day of October,
2024
D E P O N E N T.
Identified by me:
(Adv. for the Petitioner)
VAKALATNAMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Writ Petition No. / 2024
CARMEN OLENDE & ANR …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
I, Carmen Olende, major of age, the Petitioner No. 1 in the
above matter and guardian of Petitioner No. 2, hereby
appoint Adv. Vibhav Amonkar, Adv. Shaish Naik, Adv.
Omkar Bhave and Adv. Raj Chodankar having their Office
at 5th floor, P-1, Satt Adhar Chambers, Panaji – Goa 403
001 to appear and act on my/our behalf as my/our
Advocates.
Witness my/our hand on this ____ day of Oct, 2024
Signed:
____________
Accepted:
Signature of Advocates:
___________ __________ _________ __________
(Vibhav Amonkar) (Shaish Naik) (Omkar Bhave) (Raj
Chodankar)
