PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed a petition filed by a Nigerian national lodged at the Mapusa detention centre after repeatedly failing to appear before the court, bringing an end to proceedings in which interim relief had earlier been granted to facilitate his participation in a criminal trial in Himachal Pradesh.
The Division Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale and Justice Amit Jamsandekar dismissed the petition for want of prosecution after noting that no one appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called on Friday.
“Today, when the matter was called out, none appeared for the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter. Hence, the Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution,” the Bench observed.
The court also noted that during the previous hearing on July 2, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In that order, it had recorded the statement of Deputy Solicitor General of India S D Faldessai that the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Goa, had complied with the High Court's earlier directions issued on May 6.
The petition filed by Nigerian national Offor Ben alias Mark alias Lawrance, lodged at the Mapusa detention centre, sought directions to the FRRO to permit him to travel to New Delhi to visit the Nigerian Embassy for biometric formalities required to obtain a fresh passport.
The petitioner had argued that without a valid passport he was unable to travel to Kullu in Himachal Pradesh, where he is facing trial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II. He had also informed the High Court that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against him by the Kullu court due to his inability to appear.
However, instead of allowing him to leave Goa, the High Court had earlier devised an interim arrangement by directing the FRRO to enable the petitioner to attend the trial proceedings through video-conferencing from the Mapusa detention centre.
With the FRRO informing the court that it had complied with those directions and the petitioner subsequently failing to pursue the matter, the High Court closed the case by dismissing the petition.
