Annamaneni Krishna Kiran vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3512 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                    WRIT PETITION No.3506 OF 2021

ORDER:-

         This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of

the 4th respondent-Station House Officer of Women Police

Station, Guntur Urban, in issuing Look Out Circular (LOC)

against the petitioner and in seizing the passport of the

petitioner by the 5th respondent-Regional Passport Officer,

Vijayawada, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently sought

direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to withdraw the Look Out

Circular.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 4, learned

Additional Solicitor General for 5th respondent-Regional

Passport Officer and learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would

submit that the controversy involved in this writ petition is

squarely covered by the judgment of common High Court for the

State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Dasari

Sudheer v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, whereby it

is stated that when Look Out Circular was issued, the aggrieved

person would have two options i.e. 1) approaching the Officer

who ordered for issuance of LOC with a request to cancel it and

2) he can also approach the trial Court which can rescind the

2015 Law Suit (Hyd) 322

LOC by filing appropriate application to that effect. Therefore,

it is contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home that without exhausting the said remedies provided under

law to the petitioner, seeking withdrawal of LOC or cancellation

of the order of impounding the passport, that the petitioner

cannot directly approach this Court by invoking the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

4. On behalf of learned Additional Solicitor General, Ms.

Alekya would also submit that the petitioner has to approach

the concerned Officer, who ordered for LOC or the trial Court for

redressal of his grievance and that he cannot directly approach

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view

of the judgment cited supra.

5. This Court finds considerable force in the said contention

of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned

Additional Solicitor General. The facts of the present case are

somewhat similar to the facts of the case that was cited supra in

the case of Dasari Sudheer (supra) decided by the common

High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. In that case

also, the passport of the petitioner therein was impounded after

issuing a Look Out Circular in view of pendency of a criminal

case against him. When the petitioner therein approached the

High Court and sought cancellation of the Look Out Circular

and order of impounding the passport, the common High Court

has considered the law laid down in the judgments rendered in

the case of S.Martin v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and

others2 of Madras High Court and the other judgments

rendered by the Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan;

Court On Its own Motion Re v. Assistant Director and

others; State v. Gurnek Singh Etc.,3 wherein it is held as

follows:

".... In the said circumstances, that it is open to the petitioner to approach the Officer who ordered issuance of LOC (OR) it is open for him to approach the trial Court which can rescind the LOC issued on an appropriation application made by the person concerned".

6. Therefore, in view of the above legal position, the common

High Court has directed the petitioner therein to approach the

Superintendent of Police for the purpose of withdrawal of LOC or

to approach the trial Court seeking appropriate relief by filing an

appropriate application to that effect.

7. In the instant case, it is brought to the notice of the Court

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has

already approached the Officer who ordered for LOC by

submitting a written representation to him for cancellation of

LOC and the same is not considered till now.

8. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the considered view that in view of the law

enunciated in the above cited judgment, the ends of justice

would meet if the petitioner is directed to approach the trial

2014 Law Suit (Mad) 250

2010 Law Suit (Del) 1628

Court and file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of

LOC and for cancellation of impounding of the passport.

9. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction

to the petitioner to approach the trial Court and file an

appropriate application tomorrow i.e. on 15-09-2021 for

cancellation of the LOC and also the order impounding the

passport, to enable to him to pursue his Ph.D abroad and the

trial Court is directed to dispose of the said application on or

before 21-09-2021. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is

permitted to file an application for extension of his Visa which

according to him is going to be expired by 22-10-2021. He is

also permitted to file his application one month before the said

expiry date i.e. on or before 22-09-2021 and the Officer

concerned is required to pass appropriate order on his

application which would be subject to the result of the order

that may be passed on the application that may be filed by the

petitioner in the trial Court for cancellation of LOC and for

cancellation of order of impounding the passport as directed by

this Court supra. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date : 14-09-2021 ARR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No.3506 OF 2021

Date : 14-09-2021

ARR