THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8511 OF 2010 Dated 16th April, 2010 Between: Moolamalla Govinda Ram Reddy and another …Petitioner And The Regional Passport Officer and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1.: Smt.Vani Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 05.06.2009, issued by respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt Vani Reddy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government representing respondent No.1. The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.262 of 2008 on the file of the XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad. The said case pertains to a complaint given by their daughter-in-law, which was registered for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners were permitted to travel to USA by the Criminal Court subject to certain conditions. The said order was questioned by the complainant in a Criminal Petition filed before this Court and this Court modified the conditions imposed by the criminal Court. The petitioners claimed that the modified conditions of this Court were complied with by them and that they have made their plans to visit USA. In the meantime, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice under Section 10 (3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 to show cause why the passports of the petitioners shall not be impounded. The petitioners are stated to have filed their explanation. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the guise of pendency of the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, the lookout notices issued against them are not being withdrawn. Having regard to this grievance of the petitioners, it would be in the interests of justice that respondent No.1 passes a final order in pursuance of show cause notice dated 05.06.2009 after considering the explanation of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, after considering the petitioner’s explanation within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.10953 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th April, 2010 vrn