THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20789 OF 2005 Dated 25th November, 2009 Between: Nalamala Gnanaiah ..Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police and two others ..Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in preventing him to travel abroad as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to pay him compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for such illegal prevention. The petitioner is the former Chairman of Sravya Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, which is having its Office at Lingapur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. On allegations such as cheating, several crimes were registered against the petitioner. One of such crimes being Crime No.43 of 2002 on the file of the Central Crime Station, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 109 IPC and Section 120-B IPC, was numbered as C.C.No.68 of 2004 on the file of the learned XXI-Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In the said case, on the application being filed by the petitioner, which was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.1854 of 2005, his passport, which was seized by the investigating officer, was directed to be returned to him so as to enable him to travel abroad. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Vice-president of Visu Communications Private Limited, which started a magazine in the name and style of “Mana Bhoomi”. In order to develop the circulation of the said magazine in the United States of America, the Company has sponsored the visit of the petitioner to the United States of America to participate in TANA conference, which was scheduled to be held from 1st to 3rd July, 2005. Accordingly, the petitioner has purchased tickets to travel to United States of America on 28.06.2005 but after checking his luggage, the Immigration Officer did not permit him to board the flight stating that they received instructions not to permit him to travel abroad. The grievance of the petitioner is that as much as the competent criminal Court has ordered for return of the passport so as to enable him to travel abroad, preventing him without clearing the immigration is illegal and as such the action of the respondents be declared illegal and consequently to grant him compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Branch Immigration, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, the third respondent herein, filed counter-affidavit, wherein he referred to the various crimes registered against the petitioner and it is also stated that the amount involved in those crimes is Rs.10.86 crores. While generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that on 28.06.2005, when the petitioner approached the Immigration Clearance Counter to go to Los Angeles, the Counter S.I checked the details of the petitioner on the computer and found Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner. The matter was brought to the notice of the Inspector, who contacted the third respondent and he apprised him to follow the instructions found in the LOC. It is further stated that the order in C.C.No.68 of 2004 did not direct the immigration authorities to allow the petitioner to go to United States of America and it only directed for return of the passport. As LOC was opened legally, as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department against the petitioner, he was not cleared to go to Los Angeles (USA) on the night of 28.06.2005. LOCs will be opened on the request of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Defence, CBI, Interpol, State Police etc., against Indian Nationals whose presence is required in India in connection with any case/court order/investigation etc. In the instant case, several crimes were registered against the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, when he was planning to go to United States of America. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he was prevented illegally by the Immigration Officer, but as evident from the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent the petitioner was prevented from going to United States of America in view of the LOC issued against him as per the instructions, which are in force. I have also perused the order dated 14.06.2005, passed by the XII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.1854 of 2005 in C.C.No.68 of 2004, which only orders for return of the passport. Merely because the passport was returned to the petitioner, it cannot be said that as a matter of right, he can travel to a foreign country when his name is figured in the LOC issued by the competent authority, which prevents travel outside the home country. Since the prevention of the petitioner is based on the LOC, it cannot be said that not allowing the petitioner to travel abroad is illegal. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are no valid reasons for issuing the LOC against the petitioner. While it is open to the petitioner to question the same, but acting upon such circular, when the petitioner was prevented to travel abroad on 28.06.2005, it cannot be said that such prevention is either illegal or arbitrary so as to grant any relief including the relief of compensation as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 25th November, 2009 vrn