Govindaperumal Subbaraju v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1138/2023[2026] HKCFI 5510

Court

High Court CFI

Date05 Oct 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1138/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1138 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Govindaperumal Subbaraju	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 the documents only; or

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li:

1. Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 10 July 2023 (“the Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 21 June 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 8 February 2022 in refusing the applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim.

2.In the oral hearing of this leave application on 24 September 2026, the applicant informed the court that he wanted to go back to India and withdraw this leave application. After confirming with the applicant that he made this decision on his own volition and free will, I acceded to the application for withdrawal without adjudicating on its merits.

3.As there was nothing outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further ordered that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19.

Dated the 5^th day of October 2026

(Annson Cheung)
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 5/10/2026 Govindaperumal Subbaraju 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 5/10/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 19960 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2314/21 (Formerly RBCZ 11260/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi

[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal

01 Apr 2022

Full analysis