Mahesh Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2290/2020[2025] HKCFI 4882

Court

High Court CFI

Date17 Oct 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2290/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2290 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Mahesh Singh	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

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

Following;

consideration of documents only; or

consideration of documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:

1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By Form 86 filed on 20 November 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 6 November 2020.

2.In the Form, the Applicant named the Board as both the proposed respondent and the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent and the Director of Immigration should be the proposed interested party in an application of this sort, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion.

3.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 1 September 2025 (the “Hearing”). Notice of the Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance.

4.On 21 August 2025, the Court received a letter from the Applicant. In the letter, the Applicant indicted that he had now received his Hong Kong identity card, and so he no longer needed to proceed with the present case. The Applicant therefore requested to withdraw the Leave Application (the “Withdrawal Request”). As the Withdrawal Request was not made by way of affirmation/affidavit, the Applicant was reminded by phone to attend the Hearing to confirm the Withdrawal Request. Despite the aforesaid, the Applicant did not attend the Hearing.

5.Subsequent to the Hearing, the Applicant was contacted again by phone. The Applicant confirmed that he had issued the letter dated 21 August 2025 referred to above, and that he had obtained the Hong Kong identity card. The Applicant further submitted a copy of his Hong Kong identity card to the Court on 11 September 2025.

6.In the light of the aforesaid, I am satisfied that the Withdrawal Request was made out of the Applicant’s own free will. I am further satisfied that the Applicant genuinely wanted to withdraw the Leave Application as he can now remain in Hong Kong.

7.As there is nothing outstanding in this Action, I dismiss the Leave Application (See Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).

Dated the 17^th day of October 2025

(Allen LEE)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 17/10/2025 Mahesh Singh Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 17/10/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15025/18/12/382/IN2976 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4567/18 (Formerly RBCZ 13535/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi

[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal

01 Apr 2022

Full analysis