Allowed

Vaddevalli Lalitha Saran Kumar v. Union of India

Telangana HC18 Nov 2023WP/22435/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an illegal Look Out Circular travel ban imposed by the Bureau of Immigration based on police request. The High Court allowed the petition directing police to issue letters to the Commissioner and Immigration Authorities to close the circular.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed; Director General issued instructions to close LOC; SHO directed to letter Commissioner and Immigration Authorities to close LOC.

Vaddevalli Lalitha Saran Kumar Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

'r'lHE rloNouRABLE sRt JUsIcE c.v. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22435 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vaddevalli Lalitha Saran Kumar, S/o. Vaddevalli Srinivas^{Rao, Aged 29 years,} Occ.Managing Director, Having office at AU^{lndustriesLimited,} D.No. 8-3-086/34 and 35, Pent House, Samanyu^{Residency, Beside Oriental} Bank of Commerce, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry^{of Home Affairs, North} Block, New Delhi.

¶12

The State.of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, Home Department,} I Secrgtarigt B uild.rnga, Secretariat, Hyd era bad.

¶13

The Joint CommisSioner'of Police, CCS, DD,^Hyderabad.

¶14

4-. The $tation House Qfficei, Policsstation-Banjara^{Hills Hyderabad.}

¶15

The Bureau of lmmigration, Ministry of Home Affairs,^{Governmentof lndia.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{India praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to Issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ^of Mandamus, declaring action of respondent^{No.5 in issuingthe Look Out Circular} No.183/LOC/CCS-DD/HYD/2O19, dated 30-08-2019^{at the requdstof respondent} No.3. and imposing g lqavet ban on the^{petitioner and furthercontinuingthe} Lookout circulai. beyond the^{petiod of .} one^{. year} "^{as illegal, arbitrary, un-} constitutional, hiOhh3n!ed;wrintiul aut-trtt*thout.jurisdicliqn^{and in violationof} principles of natural^{justice.apart} from'being viotative of 'Articles 14, 19, and^{21 ot} the Constitution of lndia, in violation of the^{provisions of passport act 1967 and} consequently to set aside the ,Look Out Circular^{No- 183/LOC/CCS-}

¶18

DD/HYD/2o19, dated 30-08-2019^{issued by the respondentNo.5 against the} petitioner.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the Highcourt maybe pleased to} permit the petitioner to travel by^{suspending theLookout circular} No.183iLOC/CCS-DD/HYD/2019^{dated 30-08-20',l9 issued by the respondent} No.5 against^{petitioner, pending disposalof the Writ Petition'}

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶22

Between:

¶23

Vaddevalli Lalitha Saran^{Kumar, S/o. VaddevalliSrinivas Rao, Aged 29 years,} Occ.lVlanaqinq Director, Having^{office at AUlndustriesLimited,} o rtro- A-j-"SAdl34 and 35, Pent^{Ho-use,Samanyu Residency, Beside Oriental} Bank of Commerce, Srinagar^{Colony,Hyderabad.}

¶24

...WRIT PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

1 Union of lndia, Represented^{by its Secretary' I\ilinistryof HomeAffairs, North} Block, New Delhi.

¶27

2 The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its PrincipalSecretary, HomeDepartment,} Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶28

J The Joint Commissioner of^{Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.}

¶29

The Station House Officer,^{Police Station Banjara Hills Hyderabad'}

¶30

4 The Station House Officer,^{Police Station Banjara Hills Hyderabad'} 5 The Bureau of lmmigration, Ministry^{of Home Affairs, Government of lndia'}

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

Arvind Kumar Shaw,^{S/o. Lakhan Shaw, Aged about45 years' Occ:} f'l'^'l'pS - N,tan"ger in Radha Smelters Pvt. Ltd, Havind Registered office at 8-2-26915, Fiot No.ZS & 76 Sagar^{Co-OperativeSociety, RoadNo.2, Banjarahills,} Hyderabad, Telangana - 505208.

¶33

...IMPLEAD/PROPOSED^{RESPONDENT No.6}

¶34

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the Highcourt may bE pleased'to} implead Arvind Kumar Shaw^{as proposed Respondent No.6 to the present writ} petition No.22435 of 2023, in the interest^{of justice}

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI M.P.K.ADITYA}

¶36

--r--7
,i ./

¶37

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN^KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: AGP FOR HOME The Court made th6.foliowing; ORDER :

¶39

.E'
rf

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI JUsTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.22435 of 2o23

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following

¶44

relief:-

¶45

"...fo issue a Ltit or order/ s more particulartg one tn the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring action of respondent 1{o 5 in lssulng the Look Out Arcular No.183/LOC/CCS-DD/HyD/2019 d.ated_ 3O,08-2O1g at the request of respondent No.3 and imposing a trouel ban on the petitioner and. further^continuing the^Lookout circular begond the peiod. of one gear as tllegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, highhand_ed uithout authonty uithout jurtsdiction qnd in uiolation of princtptes of natural justice apart from being violattue of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Cc,ls;titution of Inrlia, in uiotation oJ the prouisions of passport act 1967 and cotsequen g to set asid.e the Look Out Circulqr No. 183/LOC/ CCSDD/HyD/2019 dated 30_08_2019 issued by the respondent No.S against the petitioner..."

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been a-rrayed as Accused No.l in Crime No.494 of 2Ol9 on the file of Banjara Hil1s Police station, which was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Aravind Kumar Shaw, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 4TI of IpC. He further submits that during the course of investigation, police arrested the petitioner and sent him to judicial custody and thereafter, the petitioner filed bail application vide Crl.M.p.No.3329 of 2079 on the fi1e of III Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad and the said cr1.M.p was a,rlowed vide order dated 19 .lO.2Ol9 and the petitioner/A. 1 rvas ordered to be released on

¶47

¶48

bail on his executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/_ rvith trvo cash sure.ies each in the form of FDR obtained from any nationalized bank. Further, the petitioner was' directed to appear before the Station House Oflicer,, Fu"i*" Hills pclice Station once in a week on every sunday at 1o-oo AM, f9t a period of one month or til firing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. It is submitted that petitioner needs to travei to Dubai and other countries on business meetings. However, the respondent No.5 has issued lookout circular No.183/LOCICCS-DD/HyD /20Ig dated 30_OB_ 2Ai9 at the reqtrest of respondent No.3 a,d irnposed a traver ba, on the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is regularly appearing before the concerned offrcer ag per lhe directions of this Court. Despite the same, lhe LOC lssued against the, petitioner is strll continuing, due to which he is not in a position to travel to foreign country, thereby affecting his livelihood and therefore, this action of the respondents police is highty arbitrary in a way interfering with the rife and liberty of the petitioner.

¶49

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶50

Basing on the orderslpassea blr:a fearned Single Judge of this Court, thc Director General ol. police has r;ssued instructirin s, to. att the concerned by circurar Memorandum dated or.oz.2o22 vide

¶51

4
rf

¶52

¶53

C.No.3O89/C-3/IP/CIDl2Ol9-22, that whenever Section 4t-A Cr.P.C. notice is issued/whenever the bail is obtained by the accused, concerned police shal1 address a letter to the Commissioner and the Commissioner in turn shall address a letter to the Immigration Authorities to close the LOC.

¶54

In the instant case, the petitioner has obtained bail from the competent Court but still the respondents police are continuing the LOC against the petitioner without any basis.

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent No.4 i.e., Station House Officer, Banj ara Hills Police Station Hyderabad, is directed to address a letter to the Commissioner, who in turn shall address a letter to the Immigration Authorities, AS expeditiously as possible, to close the LOC issued against the petitioner.

¶56

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIStrRAR //TRUE COPY// d. SECTIONOFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

1 The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, Union of lndia.

¶60

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hycierabad, State of Telangana.

¶61

The Joint Commissioner of Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

¶62

The Station House Officer, Police Station Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶63

The Bureau of tmmisration, Ministry of Home oolr;::*rl::lr_."t ^o:

¶64

¶65

:..

¶66

One CC to SRI M.P.K.ADITYA, Advocate IOPUC]

¶67

7 One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVIAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

¶68

B. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶69

Two CD Copies

BSR
BS

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1811112023

ORDER

WP.No.22435 o12023

e STATE
7
q) o
.b
,J 2 ii i\iu ?tn
t
i
T, i:S:A1

¶77

ALLOWING THE WRIT^PETITION,

¶78

WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

[<br>\i>
<br>P

Vaddevalli Lalitha Saran Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaddevalli Lalitha Saran Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Faisal Ahmed, Vs the State of Telangana

Zakir Hussain Siddiqui, Vs The State of Telangana

Kavati Chandra Shekar Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Karne Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Akkem Mallesh Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Boda Prakash Vs The State of Telangana