Mr. Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT APPEAL NO.1369 OF 2026 (GM-PASS)

BETWEEN:

MR. CHRISTOPHE STEPHANE MONXION S/O GUY MONXION, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, C/A HOTEL GREEN (OM HOTEL) INTERNATIONAL GOKARNA, HITTALAMAKKI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581326. …APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NITIN A.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO), BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION (BOI),

(MHA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 5TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, TTMC BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027. …RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU IN W.P.NO.10453/2026

Location: High Court of Karnataka

DATED 22.04.2026 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED "LEAVE INDIA NOTICE" DATED 16.03.2026 ISSUED IN LIGHT OF THE REPORTS DATED

10.01.2026, 07.02.2026 AND 19.02.2026.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.10453/2026 (GM-PASS).

¶2The appellant, who is a foreign national, had filed the said petition, inter alia, impugning the Leave India Notice dated

16.03.2026 [impugned notice] issued by the respondent, whereby he was directed to leave the country. The appellant had also sought the issuance of a direction to the respondent to consider his representations dated 24.03.2026 and 27.03.2026.

¶3The principal ground urged by the appellant was that the impugned notice did not set out any reasons and therefore, the same was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶4During the course of the proceedings, the respondent produced a Special Report dated 10.01.2026 submitted by the Police Inspector, Gokarna Police station setting out certain allegations against the appellant. The report also stated that the appellant had taken land measuring 15 guntas on the Main Beach (Middle Beach) at Gokarna about 15 years ago on an annual rent basis and had been running a restaurant in the name and style of "French Cafe". It was further reported that the appellant came to India on a tourist Visa on 02.12.2025 and was staying at Hotel Green (OM Hotel). It was also stated that he had earlier come to India on a business Visa and had set up the restaurant, French Cafe. On an earlier occasion, in October 2022, he had overstayed in India and had obtained exit permission from the Chennai Immigration Authorities, pursuant to which he proceeded to Sri Lanka, from where he was deported to France. Apart from the aforesaid allegations, the said Special Report also contained

several other allegations, including those made by certain individuals.

¶5In the given circumstances, the learned Single Judge found no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the same.

¶6The learned counsel for the appellant submits that although several allegations have been set out in the said Special Report, the appellant had no opportunity to contest them. He states that, as far as the impugned notice is concerned, the appellant has already left the country and therefore, he does not seek any relief in that regard. His only concern is that the allegations in the said report would effectively result in rejection of any application he may make for the grant of a Visa in future.

¶7The scope of the writ petition was to challenge the impugned notice. Insofar as the said notice is concerned, the relief sought for does not survive for consideration.

¶8Insofar as the petitioner's grievance regarding the allegations contained in the police report are concerned, it is open to the appellant to make a representation in that regard to the concerned

authorities. We clarify that it will not be necessary to pass any reasoned order on such representation and the same may be considered by the concerned authorities if any application made by the appellant for grant of a visa in future.

¶9It is also clarified that this order would not be construed as requiring any authorities to give any reasons for denial, in the event the authorities decide to reject any future application made by the appellant.

¶10The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶11Pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14