SUVENDU ADHIKARI Vs. MANOJ MALAVIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner moved a writ petition bearing WPA No.129 of 2022, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated January 5, 2022. It was recorded in the said order that the learned Advocate General (appearing for the State in the writ petition and the alleged contemnors in the contempt application) submitted that there was no requirement for getting any permission from the Superintendent of Police (SP) for visiting a particular area of the State. It was further submitted that the writ petition was superfluous in the sense that no separate sanction need be given to any citizen of India to visit any part of the country, unless law is violated by the said person in any manner whatsoever.

(2.) The order went on to record that the State was justified in so submitting that no permission was required from the SP or any other authority for the petitioner, along with his security personnel, to visit any area within the periphery of India, including Netai village and that unless the petitioner and/or his men and agents violate the law in any manner, there cannot arise any apprehension of any resistance being put up by the authorities to the petitioner.

(3.) WPA No.129 of 2022 was, thus, disposed of on January 5, 2022 by observing that the petitioner and his security personnel has the right, as citizens of India, to visit not only Netai village but any other place in India, subject to legal restrictions, without violating any provision of law. If the petitioner so visits the Netai village along with his security personnel on January 7, 2022, it was observed that there would be no impediment for the petitioner and his men to do the same.