IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4635 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MARIAM SCHLEIFFER, PASSPORT NO.C9CYVG9H0 (GERMAN) C/O.NASIMUDEEN, AJME COTTAGE, KURAKKANNI.VARKALA, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE & FOREIGNERS REGISTRATION OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.4635 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a German National and is a holder of German National Passport No.C9CYVGPHO issued on 27/8/2008. Ext.P1 is the copy of the passport and the entry relating to the visa and she arrived in India on 30/10/2008. 2. The petitioner's daughter is studying in the first standard in Bharath Public School in Varkala. Ext.P3 is the copy of the Certificate of Registration and she has obtained residential permit Ext.P4 from the second respondent which expired on 8/10/2009 (Ext.P4). 3. Thereafter she sought for extension of the period of stay and filed an application before the expiry of the residential permit. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and her daughter are abandoned by her husband and she wants to continue in India for prosecuting the study of the daughter. The second respondent issued Ext.P6 order declining extension with a direction to leave India within ten days. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is pointed out that the stand taken in Ext.P6 W.P.(C)No.4635 of 2010 2 is perfectly justified as the visa rules do not allow extension of the period of stay of the petitioner as what was originally granted is a tourist visa. 5. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Superintendent of Police was not correct in rejecting the application as per Ext.P6 and the application should have been forwarded to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Reliance is placed on Ext.P4 itself to show that the application should be addressed to the Government of India. Ext.P6 has been issued by the Superintendent without forwarding it to the Government of India, according to the petitioner's counsel. Going by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, the Superintendent of Police is a designated authority and he is the Registration Officer. 6. Therefore the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Registration officer being the Superintendent of Police, herein he has got descretion in the matter and therefore this writ petition fails. Further, as pointed out in Ext.P6, going by the visa rules, no extension can be granted also, as the W.P.(C)No.4635 of 2010 3 petitioner arrived in India on a tourist visa alone. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that classes of the petitioner's daughter would be over by 21/3/2010 and at least till then she may be allowed to remain in India. It is entirely a matter for the second respondent to consider. Therefore this writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observation. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj