MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday posted to November 2 the hearing on actor Imran Khan Pal’s challenge to a November 14 deadline to leave India under a notice issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO). The leave India notice for Imran Khan has been now extended on the assurance of the ASG Anil Singh till the next date.Advocate Sunil Kumar, represented by advocate Subhash Jha, intervened in the matter, contending that the FRRO’s notice falls under criminal jurisdiction and that Khan’s civil petition could not be heard by the bench of Chief Justice Mahesh C Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna under the existing assignment.Khan’s senior counsel, VR Dhond, questioned the intervenor’s locus to raise the objection. He argued that the Chief Justice, being the master of the roster, had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.The bench said it wanted to hear the Centre’s response to the intervenor’s contention. The matter was kept back for Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to appear online from New Delhi. However, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh later sought an adjournment to enable the Solicitor General to appear. The court then posted the matter to November 2.Khan, around 44, approached the high court through lawyers Zulfiquar Memon and Parvez Memon to challenge an October 14 notice directing him to leave India by October 28. The notice was issued after an FIR was registered against him for allegedly participating in a protest in Mumbai on October 10 in support of the Cockroach Janata Party’s (CJP) agitation against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in Delhi. Advocate Kunal Vijani also appeared for Khan through video conferencing on Monday.In his petition, Khan termed the Centre’s action “arbitrary” and alleged that it violated his constitutional rights to equality, life and liberty under Articles 14 and 21, which are available to foreigners as well. He argued that the notice was issued without giving him an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice.Khan said he had been living in India since he was two years old, had no criminal antecedents, was married in India and had a child. He also earns his livelihood as an actor in the country, his petition stated.He is registered as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and is not an ordinary foreigner holding a time-bound visa, the petition said.“OCI registration confers a lifelong, multiple-entry right of entry into and residence in India, together with the rights notified under Section 7B(1) thereof,” the petition stated. It added that Section 7B(2) excludes only certain rights, including those under Article 16, eligibility for high constitutional offices, registration as a voter, membership of a legislature and appointment to public services.“None of these exclusions restricts the Petitioner’s presence at a public place,” the petition contended.