BENGALURU: A foreign national who enters the country on a tourist visa cannot be permitted to convert such an entry into a platform for commercial ventures or to engage in conduct detrimental to societal order, said the Karnataka High Court, dismissing a petition filed by 54-year-old Christophe Stephane Monxion, a French citizen, challenging the ‘Leave India Notice’ issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed the order recently, dismissing the petition filed by Monxion, who was running a restaurant at Hittalamakki in Uttara Kannada for a long time.
He challenged the legality of the notice dated March 16, 2026, which was communicated through WhatsApp to him. He contended that he is a law-abiding foreign national, holding a tourist visa valid till November 24, 2026. The issuance of the impugned notice directing him to exit the country with immediate effect is without due consideration of his legal status and without affording an opportunity of hearing is arbitrary and illegal, he argued.
The court noted that the petitioner, having breached the conditions of his entry and having attracted adverse reports from law enforcement agencies, cannot seek equitable relief from this court. The court ruled that the “Leave India Notice” is a valid exercise of statutory power, does not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality, and is in consonance with the constitutional and statutory scheme governing foreign nationals. The petitioner is liable to comply with the notice and leave India, it ordered.
The court further said that a foreign national cannot claim, as a matter of right, entitlement to continue his stay in India or to engage in commercial activities, particularly when such activities are in clear violation of the conditions of the visa under which entry was permitted.
The material on record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has transgressed the permissible limits of a tourist visa and has engaged himself in running a restaurant and allied activities, which are not only unauthorised but also have given rise to disputes with landowners affecting local order, the court added.
There were also allegations of misconduct, including the issuance of threats and inappropriate communication, the court added.
