Maruthakavi Azhakar Varadharajan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1340/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1340 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew:

1.  The Form 86 is amended on the Court’s own motion, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party;

2.  Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of India. By a Form 86 dated and filed on 29 June 2020 (“Form 86”), which was accompanied by a supporting Affirmation also dated and filed on 29 June 2020 (“the Affirmation”), the Applicant sought leave to commence a judicial review of a decision which dated 19 June 2020 which is one of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”)/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) (“the TCAB Decision”)[1].

2.At the oral hearing on 4 September 2025 the Applicant told me that he wanted to go back to his country and to apply to withdraw the said application. He then affirmed the same as evidence, that he was doing so of his own free will and volition, and that he understood that if I granted his application to withdraw then I was likely to dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review. He had no comments on my intention to amend the Form 86 of my own motion, as above, to reflect the identity of the proper putative respondent and interested party.

3.I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review without adjudicating on the merits thereof, and make the orders above. I order that the leave application should be dismissed as the action should not be left at large: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19; Luu Van Hoc v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 653 at paragraph 25; Ferrolino Jasmin Puno v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 1073 at paragraph 16; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at paragraphs 7 and 14; Re Nguyen Thi Lo [2023] HKCA 1141 at paragraph 11.

Dated the 25^th day of September 2025

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1