HU XIAOLIN Vs. DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a Chinese Citizen is invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court with the following principal prayers:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that: His client is absolutely innocent. She has been falsely implicated in the offences concerned. She has nothing to do with the offences with which her husband is implicated, either. Investigation in both these cases is yet to be accomplished. Presence of petitioner may be required both for the investigation and trial, if charge sheet is filed. Every person is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is proved before a competent court of law. That being the position, the respondents ought to have granted extension of Visa. He also adds that his client & minor child be permitted to visit China to see her aged & ailing father.

(3.) Learned CGC Mr. Aditya Singh who appeared for Respondent No.2 on request and learned AGA who represents Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 oppose the petition contending that grant of VISA is not a matter of course; it is a matter pertaining to sovereignty of the nation which treats such requests in its absolute discretion; a host of factors including reciprocity of the country to which the foreign national belongs, enter the fray and a writ court by its very limitations cannot undertake the evaluation of such factors and therefore as of necessity a large leverage is conceded to the Executive. Learned CGC placing on record a copy of the judgment in LIDONG vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER, AIR 2022 Kar 43 which involved again a Chinese national, submits that the subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to the one in the said case and therefore petitioner herein cannot be granted any relief.