ORDER
The short grievance of the petitioner is as to rejection of his application for traveling abroad on an invitation from Russian Hospital Group. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to favour the impugned order mainly on two grounds viz., the order is not a speaking order and denial could not have been made when there is already permission granted by the CBI Special Court. He also points out that right to travel abroad is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution in the light of decision in MANEKA GANDHI vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1978 SC 597.
2. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. He contends that traveling abroad when person is involved in criminal case has many
- 3 -
repercussions. The person concerned has to obtain permission of the court and secondly he has also to obtain permission of the Central Government under Section 6 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2008. The 2nd respondent has denied permission to travel because petitioner is facing a trial in a criminal case and in a disciplinary proceeding as well. So contending he seeks dismissal of writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence as under and for the following reasons:
(i) Right to travel abroad is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is true vide MANEKA GANDHI supra. However, that right is not absolute as any other right is; a person in employment has to take permission of the employer ordinarily for such an expedition; in this case permission has been accorded by the CBI Special Court is true. However that is not end
- 4 -
of the matter as rightly contended by learned AGA. Sec.3(2)(i) of the Act defines 'foreign hospitality'; since petitioner seeks to travel to Russia and the travel involves elements of foreign hospitality, permission of Central Government, is a must, says Sec.6 of the Act. This provision begins with a negative terminology "No member …. Government servant ….". A provision that begins with negative terminology is ordinarily treated as being mandatory.
The above being said, there is yet another aspect:
the impugned order is a product of exercise of statutory power and such power ought to have been exercised by giving reasons. The requirement of giving reasons is the third demand of principles of natural justice. That being the position, the impugned order which does not disclose reasons is unsustainable. This Court also notes that the subject Russian even is already over and petitioner has to wait for the next one in the pipeline.
- 5 -
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds in past; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order. If petitioner makes a fresh application on the basis of new itinerary, the same shall be considered and result of such consideration may be communicated to him within an outer limit of two weeks. If delay is brooked, heavy costs may be imposed on the erring officials in the next level of litigation. All contentions are kept open. Now, no costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SNB