ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. With the consent of both the learned counsel the Writ Petition itself has been taken up for hearing.

2. This Court has heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Gani Vivek Karra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Krishna Mohan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the 1st and 6th respondents and the learned Government. Pleader for Home (Respondents 2 to 5).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a citizen of America. He has come to Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh as a student in 1990 and continued to stay back in India. The petitioner arrived in India, more so to Andhra University in Visakhapatnam and he developed an affinity/admiration and thus stayed back in the city. After completion of his education he has also fulfilled the legal formalities and is now residing in the city of Visakhapatnam. He has started some companies also. The petitioner applied for a residential permit on 15.12.2018; submitted the requisite application etc., but the same was not processed, which lead to the filing of the present Writ Petition with a prayer to process the residential permit application. Apart from that the petitioner also sought permission to travel abroad for the purpose of visiting his sick father. The said permission was also denied on the ground that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case. This inaction and rejection prompted filing the present Writ Petition.

4. Notices were served on the respondents and the main answering respondents are respondent Nos. 1 and 6, who are represented by the learned Assistant Solicitor General. A detailed counter was also filed on their behalf. The other respondents are represented by the learned Government Pleader for Home.

5. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been residing in Visakhapatnam since long. He joined in Andhra University as a student, he fell in love with the city of Visakhapatnam and thereafter started a company etc., providing software and allied financial services. Learned senior counsel points out that all the companies duly registered as per law and the petitioner has been residing in Visakhapatnam since 21 years. The petitioner also invested in shares, opened bank accounts and is engaged in several NGOs and non-profitable organizations. He applied for a residential permit to stay in India. Learned senior counsel points out that one disgruntled ex-employee filed a false complaint against the petitioner and that a crime was registered against him in Cr. No. 720 of 2011 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam for an offence under Section 420 IPC. Learned senior counsel points out that the police, in the course of their investigation, have sent disputed documents to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad, which gave an opinion that there is no forgery. Therefore, the final report of closure was filed by the police, as it is a dispute of civil in nature. Learned senior counsel submits that a protest petition was filed by the complainant against the said closure report and the case was taken on file. Since then the case has been pending and it is numbered as C.C. No. 444 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

6. Learned senior counsel submits that on one day i.e., 06.02.2019, the petitioner did not attend the Court and an NBW was issued leading to his arrest. Then on an application the petitioner was granted bail. He submits that since then the case is pending till date. Meanwhile, the petitioner applied for a residential permit to enable him to stay in India and also sought permission to travel abroad (Exit Permit). Despite the best efforts made by the petitioner neither the Exit Permit nor the Residential Permit was given to the petitioner. The petitioner wishes to visit his aging father, who is unwell. Therefore, he is seeking the indulgen