Delhi High Court
CONT.CAS(C)/2005/2025 of PALASH KUMAR DUTTA, THROUGH SPA PRASHANT WADHWA Vs R. D. MEEENA AND ANR on 17 August 2026
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17th August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC011065542025 + CONT.CAS(C) 2005/2025 & CM APPL. 82688/2025 PALASH KUMAR DUTTA, THROUGH SPA PRASHANT WADHWA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Zahid Hanief and Ms. Disha Chauhan, Advs. Mob: 7210525656
$~3
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 17th August, 2026
#
CNR No. DLHC011065542025
+
CONT.CAS(C) 2005/2025 & CM APPL. 82688/2025
PALASH
KUMAR
DUTTA,
THROUGH
SPA
PRASHANT
WADHWA
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Zahid Hanief and Ms. Disha
Chauhan, Advs.
Mob: 7210525656
Email: zahidhaniefadv@gmail.com
versus
R. D. MEEENA AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, CGSC with
Ms.
Samiksha
and
Ms.
Nandini
Aggarwal, Advs.
Mob: 9811612855
Email: jusassociates201@gmail.com
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 13th October, 2023, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7373/2023, wherein, it had been directed as follows: “1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Respondent to permit the Petitioner to visit India and to remove the name of the Petitioner from the blacklist category restraining the Petitioner from entering the country.
2. Notice was issued on 26.05.2023. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent/Union of India.
3. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Petitioner has been blacklisted as a blacklist Grade-A and the order of blacklisting has been issued at the behest of the security agency. It is further stated that the Petitioner is blacklisted as he entered twice on two different identities and on the basis of fictitious address which could not be traced.
4. Mr. Manish Mohan, learned CGSC, very fairly points out the a Review Committee has been constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Petitioner can approach the Review Committee giving his reasons as to why the Petitioner should not be blacklisted and this Court should relegate the Petitioner to avail the said remedy available to him instead of entertaining the instant writ petition.
5. The suggestion given by Mr. Manish Mohan, learned CGSC, is reasonable one. Resultantly, the Petitioner is directed to approach the Review Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs to consider his case.
6. The Respondents are directed to provide the Petitioner with the two addresses which have been furnished by the Petitioner in his Visa applications which is the basis for blacklisting the Petitioner. Let the addresses be furnished within a period of 10 days from today.
7. The Petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the Review Committee within two weeks thereafter. The Review Committee is requested to consider the petition of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
9. The writ petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.”
2. Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the application of the petitioner for Visa to visit India was not allowed on the basis that he had been blacklisted at behest of the security agency.
3. Accordingly, by way of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was permitted to file a representation before the Review Committee, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the Review Committee was directed to consider the said representation of the petitioner expeditiously.
4. Today, a Compliance Affidavit dated 14th August, 2026, has been handed over to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents, which is taken on record.
5. The relevant paragraphs of the said Compliance Affidavit, read as under: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”
6. Perusal of the aforesaid shows that the petitioner herein has been permitted to visit India, and his name has been removed from the blacklist category.
7. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the said Compliance Affidavit, the petitioner has been referred as a Bangladeshi National.
8. He draws the attention of this Court to the representation of the petitioner dated 02nd November, 2023, submitted to the Review Committee, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, wherein, it has been stated as follows: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”
9. By referring to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a dual citizenship of Bangladesh and Australia.
10. He, thus, submits that no impediment may be put on the Visa application of the petitioner on this ground.
11. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that copies of both the passports of the petitioner, viz. issued by Bangladesh and Australia, are before the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
12. He submits that as and when the petitioner applies for a Visa to visit India, requisite orders shall be passed.
13. The aforesaid statement is taken note of.
14. No further orders are required to be passed in the present petition.
15. Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending application is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 17, 2026/SK