THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30248 of 2011 ORDER: Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 01.12.2011, both respondent Nos.1 and 2 are present in the Court. Ms S.Nanda, Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, would submit that on 01.12.2011, the ﬁrst respondent has issued a Look- Out Circular (LOC) valid upto 14.03.2012; the second respondent is bound to implement the said LOC; they shall ensure that the petitioner does not leave the country and be produced before the ﬁrst respondent whenever he requires them to do so; and it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned seeking suspension of an LOC. Smt K.Pallavi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, against the charge sheet ﬁled in C.C.No.590 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, the petitioner ﬁled Crl.P.No.12045 of 2010; this Court, by its order dated 08.08.2011, in Crl.MP.No.11077 of 2010 in Crl.P.No.12045 of 2010, had granted stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.590 of 2010; since all further proceedings were stayed in C.C.No.590 of 2010 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, the petitioner is in no position to ﬁle a petition seeking suspension of an LOC; and, instead, this Court may impose whatever conditions it considers appropriate, and suspend the LOC to enable the petitioner to go over to Dubai where he is working. I must express my inability to agree. Pursuant to the interim order passed in Crl.P.No.12045 of 2010 ﬁled by the petitioner, all proceedings in C.C.No.590 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad have been stayed. Having obtained an order of stay, it is not open to the petitioner to now contend that he is precluded from ﬁling a petition before the Learned Magistrate seeking suspension of the LOC. Even otherwise the order of suspension does not necessitate the conclusion that the proceedings in C.C.No.590 of 2010 would be quashed later. As long as the criminal case in C.C.No.590 of 2010 is pending on the ﬁle of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, (albeit all further proceedings being stayed therein pursuant to the interim order of this Court), it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court, more so in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to suspend the LOC which, in eﬀect, would mean that the petitioner would be free to leave the country. Acceding to such a request would mean that, even in case the Criminal Petition were to be dismissed later, steps would have to be taken to seek extradition of the petitioner from Dubai. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary and, unless a case of a patent illegality is made out, this Court would, ordinarily, refrain from interference. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:02.12.2011 usd