Cuttack, Oct. 28: Orissa High Court has condemned filing of a "frivolous" petition by a Portuguese national in 2005 seeking compensation of 10 million Euros for delay in granting of passport to his wife.

"The entire endeavour made by the counsel for the petitioner to pursue the court amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Thus, we condemn the filing of such frivolous and vexatious litigation at the instance of the petitioner," the division bench of Chief Justice Vineet Saran and Justice B.R. Sarangi said.

In its judgment that came after nearly eleven years, the bench said: "This case has a chequered history. The petitioner (Manuel Antonio Da Anunciacao Parkasch), who came to India in 1994 on a tourist visa issued in October 1994 for a period of six months, continues to stay in India by getting his visa extended through an embassy in Nepal and thereafter extending it from time to time. During this period, he came into contact with a lady called Gayatry Moharana and is said to have married her. The petitioner is still continuing to stay in this country (as stated by his counsel) on the basis of having got Persons of Indian Origin card (PIO card)".

As stated in the court order, the petitioner, who is a citizen of Portugal and was earlier a resident of Denmark, had been permitted to stay in India under PIO card. He was residing in Bhubaneswar when he filed the petition seeking compensation on the ground of violation of human rights and his right to life.

"We are unable to understand as to what right of the petitioner has been violated as he has been permitted to stay in India till he has a valid visa and, merely because a passport has not been issued to his wife, who is an Indian, it cannot be said to be violation of human rights and his right to life," the court observed, while dismissing the petition for compensation in its October 5 order. In its 13-page order, the court further held that the petition "suffers from suppression of facts", while alleging "so called harassment caused by the passport authority in Bhubaneswar to his wife for delay in issuance of passport".

The court expressed displeasure that the petition had not disclosed that the wife of the petitioner had earlier filed a petition in Orissa High Court in 2003 claiming compensation of Rs 50 crores, when a civil suit filed by her against the passport authority claiming damages of Rs 10 lakh in 2002 was pending before the District Judge, Delhi.

The order said the high court had dismissed her petition on August 1, 2007, while imposing costs of five thousands rupees "for having not approached the Court with clean hand". Subsequently, she had also withdrawn her petition from the Delhi Court.

The petitioner's wife had also instituted a case against the passport authority in the District Consumer Redressal Forum, New Delhi, in 2001, where she had become unsuccessful. She had preferred an appeal to the State Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which confirmed order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, the court said in its order while ruling that such disclosures amounted to suppression of facts.