JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. The petitioner, who is a citizen of Portugal and was a resident of Denmark, both countries of the European Union, had been permitted to stay in India under PIO card, and presently residing at Bhubaneswar, has filed this writ application seeking following relief; “Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed before Your Lordships, to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opps, and after hearing, Your Lordships would be pleased to issue appropriate writs, orders, directions, directing the Opps to: 1. (a) Pay a compensation of 10 Million euros only, to the petitioner’s family, for consequences of the Union in delaying passport to the petitioner’s wife. (b) Pay a further compensation of 5 Million euros only, to the petitioner’s family, for the departure of the petitioner’s two children from India with Indian documents but no Portuguese documents. 2. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to: (a) Take up and dispose of this writ application, on priority basis. (b) Provide the petitioner’s family with safe exit from India. (c) To provide for a complete solution to the petitioner’s family. And for which act of your Lordships kind benevolence, the petitioner shall remain as in duty bound ever pray. ” 2. Mr. A.K. Hota, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that the petitioner had come to India in October, 1994 on tourist Visa issued in Denmark. In course of his stay, he entered into wedlock with one Gayatry Moharana, an Indian girl, native of Keonjhar in the State of Odisha. The marriage was solemnized under the authority of Guru Ananda Marga as per the Ananda Marga marriage system on 12.06.1995 at Bokaro Steel City, (Bihar) Jharkhand and also under the Hindu Marriage Act on 03.02.1996. The said marriage was registered with the Marriage Officer, Delhi. The petitioner and his wife had sought permission for marriage from the bride’s father, elder brother and other relatives, who did agree with the marriage. All persons involved were given to understand that the petitioner and his wife were going to Denmark after the marriage by Ananda Marga, but, subsequently, the bride’s family later on changed mind and refused to give Gayatry on marriage to the petitioner. As a result, Gayatry abandoned her home and married to the petitioner on 12.06.1995. All persons involved were given to understand that the petitioner and his wife were going to Denmark after the marriage by Ananda Marga, but, subsequently, the bride’s family later on changed mind and refused to give Gayatry on marriage to the petitioner. As a result, Gayatry abandoned her home and married to the petitioner on 12.06.1995. The wife of the petitioner after marriage applied for passport on or around 22.09.1995 and on 28.07.1997 at the pass port office, Bhubaneswar, but she was issued pass port only on 15.10.1998, after expiry of a long period of more than three years. For delay in considering to issue pass port by the passport authority, it destroyed the entire family set-up of the petitioner, giving rise to serious legal consequences. The Visa granted to the petitioner got expired. Consequentially, he faced a lot of difficulties to stay in India without any valid Visa/Passport. Though he had applied for the same, the pass port authority created immense difficulties for him. Therefore, he was under a psychological truma for all these period. However, under the PIO Card, he is staying in India. But, for the mental agony caused to the wife of the petitioner for delay in grant of passport, he has approached this Court with above mentioned relief. 3. Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel raised question of maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner and stated that for the self same relief, the wife of the petitioner filed a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No. 13498 of 2003 claiming compensation of rupees fifty crores for alleged inaction and delay by the Regional Pass-Port Officer in granting passport to her, as the spouse of a western national. It is further urged that the wife of the petitioner applied for issuance of passport before the Regional Pass Port Officer, Bhubaneswar, in which she did not disclose the fact of marriage and the name of her husband and described herself as Miss Gayatry Moharana, daughter of Bimbadhar Moharana. Consequentially, the matter was referred to the Police, Special Branch, C.I.D. and the Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar, who reported that she was not staying in the district of Keonjhar, but was staying at Bokaro in Bihar. Consequentially, the matter was referred to the Police, Special Branch, C.I.D. and the Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar, who reported that she was not staying in the district of Keonjhar, but was staying at Bokaro in Bihar. The Inspector of Police reported that she was a supporter of Anand Marg and her brother Jiban Ballav Moharana was a whole-timer of Anand Marg and might act against the interest of the nation. On the basis of all the above facts, her application was rejected on 27.07.1997. Subsequently, she moved another application on the very next day, i.e., 28.07.1997 disclosing the name of her husband and also enclosing the marriage certificate. The Regional Passport Officer followed the instruction given by the Ministry of External Affairs dated 13.01.1984 in which it had been inter alia mentioned that the Government under the cover of their letter dated 23.02.1993 sent the name of 76 Anand Margis who held high positions in the organization or had gained prominence in it in the recent past and had been placed in the Prior Approval Category and if any of them applied for pass-port facility of any kind, the case should be referred to Ministry quoting the reference number of the letter for clearance before any service is rendered. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar and CID gave clearance and thereafter the Regional passport Officer moved the Ministry which sent their approval by letter dated 07.10.1998 and consequently, the passport was issued in faour of the wife of the petitioner on 15.12.1998, but she surrendered her passport on 23.04.1999, as she had not changed her surname ‘Moharana’ and obtained the passport showing the surname of her father and subsequently with changed surname she applied for grant of passport, which was issued to her on 17.08.1999 mentioning her name as “Gayatry Belo” instead of “Gayatri Moharana”. Thereby, she claimed compensation of rupees fifty crores by filing the writ application (W.P.(C) No.13498 of 2003), but the same was dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The matter was challenged before the apex Court by the wife of the petitioner but the same stood dismissed. Thereby, she claimed compensation of rupees fifty crores by filing the writ application (W.P.(C) No.13498 of 2003), but the same was dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The matter was challenged before the apex Court by the wife of the petitioner but the same stood dismissed. For the self same relief, the present petitioner claiming to be the husband of Gayatry Moharana has again approached this Court by way of filing the present writ application, even if he has no locus standi to claim such relief, in the present writ application and seeks for dismissal of the same in limini. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri A. Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 and 2, and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party no.3, and perused the record. 5. This case has a chequered history. The petitioner, who came to India in the year 1994 on a Tourist Visa issued in October, 1994 for a period of six months, continues to stay in India, firstly by getting his Visa extended through the Indian Embassy in Nepal and thereafter extended from time to time. During this period, he came in contact with one girl Gayatry Moharana and, thereafter, he is said to have married her. The petitioner is still continuing to stay in this country, which learned counsel for the petitioner states that is on the basis of having got PIO card. The said PIO is given only to the person of Indian origin, which admittedly the petitioner is not. We are not to go into the question as to how and on what basis the petitioner is continuing to stay in India, because that is not the issue involved in this writ petition. 6. The prayer made in this writ petition is for payment of compensation of 10 million Euros to the petitioner’s family for consequence of delay in granting Passport to the petitioner’s wife and further compensation of 5 million Euros to the petitioner’s family for the departure of his two children from India with Indian documents but not Portuguese documents. Further prayer has been made to provide the family of the petitioner with safe exit from India and also to provide for a complete solution to his family. 7. Further prayer has been made to provide the family of the petitioner with safe exit from India and also to provide for a complete solution to his family. 7. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition of the petitioner’s wife-Gayatry Moharana, for payment of compensation has been dismissed up to the Supreme Court and now the petitioner is claiming compensation on behalf of his wife and family members. Once the petition for compensation filed by the wife has admittedly been dismissed, the fresh petition filed by the petitioner herein filed on behalf of his wife and family members with the same prayer, i.e. compensation, would not be maintainable. 8. On perusal of the pleadings made in the writ application and the order passed by this Court dated 01.08.2007 in W.P.(C) No. 13498 of 2003, which has been confirmed by the apex Court, many factual aspects have been suppressed in this present writ application. Meaning thereby, the wife of the petitioner had instituted a Consumer Case bearing no. 494 of 2001 against the passport authority in the District Consumer Redressal Forum, New Delhi, where she had become unsuccessful and also preferred an appeal to the State Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi, by which the order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum has been confirmed. Then, she preferred a Civil Suit No. S78/02 before the District Judge Delhi against the passport authority claiming damages of Rs.10 lakhs and during pendency of the suit, she filed W.P.(C) No. 13498 of 2003 claiming for compensation to the tune of rupees fifty crores and later on the same civil suit has been withdrawn by her. This Court, while adjudicating the writ application has come to a definite finding that in the writ petition filed before this Court that the same was frivolous and vexatious in nature and it was nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and dismissed the writ application awarding cost for having not approached this Court with clean hand. While dismissing the writ application filed by the wife of the petitioner, this Court has also taken note of judgments of the apex Court in Yogesh K. Bhatia v. State of U.P., 1995 Supp. While dismissing the writ application filed by the wife of the petitioner, this Court has also taken note of judgments of the apex Court in Yogesh K. Bhatia v. State of U.P., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 741, Bachchu Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 2284 and B. Srinivas Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Association and others, (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II). 9. These materials information have not been placed on record by the present petitioner while seeking relief as mentioned above. On the other hand, the petitioner claims equity by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging so called harassment caused by the passport authority to his wife for delay in issuance of the passport. The non-disclosure of the facts in the writ application as discussed above, clearly amounts to suppression of facts. 10. In Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 852 , the apex Court held that who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim “Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem”, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. 11. Similar view has also been taken in K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620 , where the apex court held that when a person approaches a Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. 12. In Noorduddin v. K.L. Anand (1995) 1 SCC 242 , the apex court held that Judicial process should not become an instrument of oppression or abuse of means in the process of the Court to subvert justice for the reason that the interest of justice and public interest coalesce. The Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis private interest while exercising their discretionary powers. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. Similar view has also been taken in Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran, AIR 1996 SC 2687 , and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 1236 . 13. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. Similar view has also been taken in Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran, AIR 1996 SC 2687 , and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 1236 . 13. Considering the facts of the present case vis-à-vis the law laid down by the apex Court, this court is of the considered view that the writ application suffers from suppression of facts. as such the entire endeavor made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to pursue the Court for grant of relief by wasting the valuable time of the Court amounts to abuse of process of Court. Thus, we condemn the filing of such frivolous and vexatious litigation at the instance of the present petitioner. 14. The only ground argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been violation of human rights and right to life because of which compensation should be paid. However, we are unable to understand as to what right of the petitioner has been violated, as he has been permitted to stay in the country till he has a valid Visa and merely because a Passport has not been issued to the wife of the petitioner, who is an Indian, it cannot be said to be the violation of human rights and right to life of the petitioner. 15. Even otherwise, from the facts of the case, we do not find any merit for allowing the prayer of the petitioner claiming compensation on behalf of his family members. 16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.