Ramamurthi Kodavali alias Rama Murthy Chetty Vs The Union of India

RAMAMURTHI K O DAVALI ALIAS RAMA MURT H Y CHETTY, KODAVALLI S/O K AKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEA R S, OCC PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O N O.53, NATURE CITY, 0PP. THE C R EEK PLANET SCHOOL MERC U RY CAMPUS, BOWRAMPET, TELANGANA500043.

¶12

NIVEDHITHA KO D AVALI ALAIS NIVEDITHA KOD A VALI, W/O K RAMAMURTHY, A GED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC HO U SEWIFE, R/O NO.53, NATURE CITY, 0PP. THE CREEK PLAN E T SCHOOL MERCURY CAMP U S, BOWRAMPET, TELANGANA-50 0 043.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE UNION OF I N DIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, N ORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, REP. BY ITS C O MMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF HO M E AFFAIRS, EAST BLOCK - VIII, L E VEL - II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI - 110 066

¶17

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, S ECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, A M ARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT , ANDHRA PRADESH-522238.

¶18

2

¶19

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-522503.

¶20

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515001.

¶21

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAHILA UPS, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-515001.

¶22

SANKARA KAVITHA, W/O ROHIT SAI GANESH, R/O FLAT NO. C40, DWARAKA VILLAS, KALYANDURGAM ROAD, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515001.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No.1 to 6 in issuing Look-Out Circular/Look-Out Notice issued against me and issued against my wife vide LOG Ref.No.2500010460 dated 08.10.2025 in connection with Crime No.75 of 2025 of Mahila UPS, Anantapur, Anantapuram District as illegal, arbitrary and amounts to abdication of statutory duties cast up on them and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently cancel the Look-Out Circular/Look-Out Notice issued by Respondent No.1 to 6 against me and against my wife vide LOC Ref.No.2500010460 dated 08.10.2025 in connection with Crime No.75 of 2025 of Mahila UPS, Anantapur, Anantapuram and pass such

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of the Look-Out Circular/Look-Out Notice issued by Respondent No.1 to 6 against me and against my wife vide LOG Ref.No.2500010460 dated 08.10.2025 in connection with Crime No.75 of 2025 of Mahila UPS, Anantapur, Anantapuram District pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass such

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶28

1.VENSO LAW FIRM

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

GP FOR HOME

¶31

3

¶32

The Court made the following order:

¶33

Aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.1 to 6 in issuing Look-Out Circular/Look-Out Notice issued against petitioner No.2 vide LOC Ref.No.2500010460 dated 08.10.2025 in connection with Crime No.75 of 2025 of Mahila UPS, Anantapur, Anantapuram District, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶34

Heard Sri Venkata Mohan Rao Pathakota, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, a case was registered against the petitioners in Crime No.75 of 2025 of Mahila UPS, Anantapur. He further submitted that despite the petitioners having fully cooperated with the investigation authorities in the course of the investigation, a Look-Out Circular (LOC) dated 08.10.2025 was issued against petitioner No.2 in connection with the said Crime. He further submitted that the petitioners apprehend that they may be detained and prevented from travelling abroad, pursuant to the said Look-Out Circular, if they attempt to travel. Hence, prayed to cancel the LookOut Notice issued against the petitioner No.2.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner No.2,

¶37

4

¶38

without first approaching the competent authorities for withdrawl/cancellation

¶39

of the Look Out Circular, has straight away filed the present Writ Petition. They further contended that in view of the availability of such an alternative remedy, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed .

¶40

Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

There is no dispute with regard to registration of Crime No.75 of 2025 on the file of Mahila UPS, Anantapur against the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the issuance of the Look-Out Circular/LookOut Notice against petitioner No.2 in connection with the said Crime. It is the specific contention of the respondents that petitioner No.2 has not approached the competent authority seeking withdrawal/cancellation of the Look-Out Circular before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is some force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the parties should invariably approach the authority concerned at the first instance. To entertain a Writ of Mandamus, it is a precondition that the aggrieved person should have approached the authorities competent against whom such a direction is sought for. The said representation/appeal acknowledged by the authorities competent must be available in the file of the authorities concerned. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the authority concerned.

¶42

5

¶43

In view of the same, instead of going into the merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ petition, with the consent of both the parties, at the stage of admission itself with the following direction:

¶44

i) The petitioner No.2 is at liberty to make an appropriate

¶45

application/representation before the competent authority seeking

¶46

withdrawal/cancellation of Look-Out Circular/Look-Out Notice.

¶47

ii) On such submission of the application/representation by petitioner No.2, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible.

¶48