VASUDEO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nobody has appeared, for the respondents despite service and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner has submitted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 15.12.2003 with the averments, inter alia, that he was holding a passport but it could not be renewed in time. The petitioner submitted a fresh application for passport on 21.01.1992 and the application remained pending for about one year. On 01.02.1993, the petitioner was informed that the Superintendent of Police had reported about a case pending against him and to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for suppression of fact. The petitioner replied that in criminal case No. 1/1990 he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur before he moved application for passport. The petitioner has annexed a copy of his reply as Annex. 2 and a copy of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 18.11.1991 as Annex.4. The petitioner has also submitted that the matter was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur and the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur had obtained affidavit of the fact that he was acquitted and no criminal case was pending against him. A copy of this affidavit has been submitted with the writ petition as Annex. 3. The petitioner,thereafter, submitted a writ petition before this Court being writ petition No. 118/1995, which was dismissed in default on 17.02.1998; the petitioner filed an application for restoration but the same was also declined.

(3.) Taking the averments aforesaid, the petitioner has submitted this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to issue the passport to him in pursuance of the application submitted by him on the grounds that the action of the respondents in withholding of issuance of passport was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that the passport was sought to be denied to him on baseless and incorrect ground and such denial was violative of fundamental right of freedom of movement and violative of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.