The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Police did not have the authority to seize or impound the petitioner's passport, and that such action could only be taken by the Regional Passport Officer under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.

1. The petitioner, who holds an Indian passport, but who works in Singapore for the past about ten years, has come up with the first writ petition, seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to return his passport bearing No.J3497386 seized from him by the Inspector of Police. He has come up with the second writ petition, challenging a Look Out Notice issued by the Police to the Chief Immigration Officer of the Bureau of Immigration.

2. I have heard Mr. J. Pothiraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Passport Officer, Mrs. R. Maheswari, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Department of Immigration, Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State and Mrs. C. Shyamala, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner's wife, who is the fourth respondent in the first writ petition.

3. The petitioner married the fourth respondent at Paramakkudi on 9.7.2009. Thereafter, both of them left for Singapore where the petitioner is employed. The petitioner's wife returned to India, for the delivery of her baby in August 2010. It appears that differences and disputes arose between the petitioner and his wife leading to the petitioner filing of a petition in I.D.O.P. No.8 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court at Ramanathapuram, seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

4. It appears that the petitioner's wife filed a transfer petition in Tr.C.M.P.No.7 of 2013 on the file of the Madurai Bench of this Court for the transfer of the said petition. She also lodged a complaint with the Paramakkudi Police.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner's wife again lodged a complaint with the All Women Police Station, Thousand Lights, Chennai in Cr.No.1 of 2014 for alleged offences under Sections 494, 498A and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. When the petitioner was about to leave for Singapore, he was detained by the Immigration Authorities at the Bangalore Airport, on the basis of a Look Out Notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Triplicane. The petitioner was also arrested on 1.2.2014 and his passport was seized by the respondent Police.

6. The petitioner secured bail from the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore on 5.2.2014, on condition that the petitioner should report before the third respondent Police for 30 days. After his release on bail, the petitioner moved an application before the Magistrate Court for the return of the properties seized from him, including a mobile phone and the passport. But, the application for return of the passport was not entertained on the ground that it is not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner first filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6697 of 2014. In the said writ petition, it was informed that the Immigration Authorities, who seized the passport, handed over the same to the Police and that the Police, in turn, handed over the passport to the Regional Passport Officer.

7. Therefore, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition and approached the Regional Passport Officer. Since nothing was forthcoming, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before this Court. The revision in Crl.R.C.No.400 of 2014 was disposed of by an order dated 22.4.2014 directing the Regional Passport Officer to pass suitable orders in accordance with law. But, the Regional Passport Officer did not take any steps. Therefore, the petitioner came up with the first writ petition W.P.No.18637 of 2014 for a Mandamus to direct the Regional Passport Officer to return the passport. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the second writ petition challenging the Look Out Notice issued by the third respondent - Police.

8. The second writ petition challenging the Look Out Notice is capable of being disposed of without much ado. Therefore, I shall take it up first.

9. Mrs. R. Maheswari, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel produced a