PARESHKUMAR MANJIBHAI GAJERA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today, when the matter is called out, learned advocate Mr. B.T. Rao, appearing for the petitioner does not press the Note for Speaking to Minutes since pursuant to circulation note as requested by learned advocate Mr. Rao, the Court has taken up the matter for hearing today itself.

(2.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs:-

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that a case has been filed under Sections 143, 147, 149, 186, 501, 353, 447 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Damage to the Public Properties Act lodged at Pradyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot being C.R. No.I-192 of 2000. The allegation is that the petitioner is a part of unlawful assembly comprising more than 40 persons and has rushed to the place of meeting of Home Minister held on 02.04.2000 at Rajkot. The petitioner along with other 40 persons have shouted slogans and disrupted the programme of the Home Minister. As a result of this, FIR was lodged and as many as 30 persons have been arrested. The petitioner is also one of them shown at Serial No. 28 in the FIR. 3. 1. The case has been registered as Criminal Case No. 4270 of 2000 and the same is pending after the submission of the charge sheet for onward adjudication. It is the grievance of the petitioner that since the case is pending, the passport authorities are issuing passport for short duration and the details whereof are mentioned in para 6 of the petition. It is further the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner is involved in any case, but on account of the pendency, the petitioner is given the passport for a short duration with a request and time and again has to move the Court on every occasion for seeking permission. In the recent past, the petitioner has applied for the passport and in turn respondent no. 3 has issued the passport valid for one year from 25.09.2017 to 24.09.2018 passport bearing No. R-4575693 and on account of this situation, the petitioner is put to immense hardship. The petitioner is a business person and on account of his construction business, the petitioner has to frequently travel to abroad on business trip and every year whenever the petitioner has applied to the Court below for NOC, the authorities have granted the passport and there is no misuse by the petitioner in any form. It has also been stated by way of draft amendment carried out on 16.05.2018 that on account of this situation, there are serious consequences on the issue of immigration of the respective countries and they are and they will create the issue with regard to VISA if the validity of the passport is less then a period of six months and therefore, to avoid all these consequences, and to see that since the petitioner has misused the liberty given in the past, it is expected that the passport authority shall consider the request of the petitioner. Hence, the aforesaid petition is filed for seeking the afore stated reliefs.