Panaji: A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, comprising of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta, has adjourned the further hearing of the contempt petition filed by Adv. Aires Rodrigues over the failure of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to comply with the High Court order passed on July 25, directing the MHA to consider and decide within 30 days the application filed by Adv. Rodrigues for an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card.
While the Central Government Advocate, Raviraj Chodankar, submitted that the MHA has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the High Court observed that the MHA should either obtain a stay order or comply with the July 25 order.
On May 15 of last year, Adv. Aires Rodrigues obtained his Portuguese passport in Lisbon, and on his return to Goa in the first week of June, he immediately surrendered his Indian passport at the Goa Passport Office as required by law.
After surrendering his Indian passport and obtaining a Surrender Certificate and all other required documents, he applied for his OCI card, only to be told by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) in Mumbai that the new rule required six months’ residence in Goa before filing an OCI application.
After completing the requisite six months’ residence, Adv. Rodrigues once again applied for an OCI card on January 25 of this year and was given an appointment on March 5 at FRRO Mumbai for verification of his original documents, which was successfully completed on that day, after paying the requisite processing fee of Rs 15,000. Three months later, on June 6, 2024, Adv. Rodrigues received a one-line email from FRRO Mumbai stating that his OCI application had been cancelled under Rule 32(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.
Aggrieved by the decision of FRRO Mumbai, Adv. Rodrigues immediately moved the High Court on June 20. In his petition, Adv. Rodrigues submitted that the decision by FRRO Mumbai to cancel his OCI application was arbitrary, illegal, erroneous, unjust, and contrary to law. Adv. Rodrigues further submitted that the one-sentence decision by FRRO Mumbai, without providing any reasons, violated the principles of natural justice.
