Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Annamaneni Krishna Kiran vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 September, 2021
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
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 1 2015 Law Suit (Hyd) 322 2 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 3 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 2 2014 Law Suit (Mad) 250 3 2010 Law Suit (Del) 1628 4 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 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.3506 OF 2021 Date : 14-09-2021 ARR