MARTINEZ MONTSANT JOAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is Spanish National, holding passport No. X 804029. The petitioner came to India on 19-6-2006 via New Delhi on a student visa valid for a period of five years from 19-6-2006 to 18-6-2011 and got his name registered with Foreign Registration Officer, Gangtok, Sikkim and obtained a residential permit at Sikkim valid till 30-4-2007. The said permit was however, extended up to 30-4-2008. As the petitioner was residing at Sai kailash Apartments, 7th Floor, Flat No. 701, Puttaparthy, Anantapur District, andhra Pradesh without informing to the FRO, Anantapur about change of his residence to Puttaparthy from Sikkim and also without extending the residential permit beyond 30-4-2008 and tried to leave India on 1-6-2009 from Bangalore to bangkok, on the above circumstances, the petitioner was charged with violation of Rules 11 and 12 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, and para 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 and also under section 5 of the Registration of foreigners Act, 1939 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and thereafter he was arrested on 4-6-2009 and was sent to judicial custody.

(2.) HENCE, this Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the 3rd respondent-Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabaad to release the petitioner by declaring the Rules 11 and 12 of the Registration of foreigners Rules, 1992 and para 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1949 as illegal, unfair, unjust and without authority of law and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 21, 25 and 51 and also in disregard to International Law and in consequence to quash the Crime No. 58 of 2009 pending before the Puttaparti (U)P. S. , Anantapur.

(3.) MR. Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Rule 11 and 12 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 are unconstitutional as they violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also they are in derogation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that as the petitioner came to India to study and practice 'vajrayana Buddhism' and that he was practicing the teachings of 'buddhism' taught by his Gurus, therefore, imposition of the limitation of travel on a Foreigner who is holding valid visa is nothing but an archaic and unreasonable restriction on his freedom to travel within India and abroad, and the same is in clear derogation of