R. Subbiah, J.

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from preventing her from proceeding to London to continue her studies and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw the Look Out Circular pending on the file of the second respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she completed her schooling in Velammal Residential School at Ponneri, Thiruvallur District and secured 420/500 in the Higher Secondary Examinations. Thereafter, she left India to London during the year 2012 to pursue one year Bio-medical course in Health Science. After completing the course, during 2013, she got admission in University of Essex in United Kingdom for pursuing three years B.B.A. Course and as per the schedule, she is completing the said course this year. According to the petitioner, she never stayed with her parents from her childhood and completed their studies by staying in hostel. While so, on 24.02.2016, the petitioner came down to Chennai to mainly to gather certain information about the legal studies in National Law School at Bangalore inter alia to meet her sister and grand mother. Thereafter, on 26.02.2016 when the petitioner was proceeding to Bangalore in Car, near Ranipet Town in Vellore District, the vehicle was intercepted by the fourth respondent purportedly on the ground that her father Mr. Sridhar is the main accused in a case registered in Crime No. 117 of 2016 on the file of the fourth respondent and therefore, they have detained the petitioner for an enquiry by serving a notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was taken to the fourth respondent-Police station where she was enquired in detail inter alia compelled her to disclose the whereabouts of her father. The petitioner disclosed truly as to the material information known to her. According to the petitioner, she is residing out of India and even during her stay in India, she pursued her schooling by staying in hostel.

3. It is mainly contended by the petitioner that after completing the enquiry, even though the petitioner could not go over to Bangalore, she came back to Chennai to board the Srilankan Airlines Flight (UL-126) by 3.00 am on 27.02.2016 to go to London. When the petitioner reached the Chennai airport on 27.02.2016 at 1.30 am, she was stopped by the immigration officials and refused to permit her to board the flight on the ground that a lookout Circular has been issued prohibiting her to travel out of India. According to the petitioner, she was unlawfully detained by the respondents without any compelling reasons and thereby she could not leave India to london to pursue her further studies. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that by reason of the unlawful detention of the petitioner, she could not complete her final year degree course at London. By reason of such detention, the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 have been curtailed and infringed. The detention of the petitioner on the only ground that her father involved in a criminal case is legally not sustainable. In any event, if the petitioner is not permitted to over to London to continue her further studies, she will be deprived of her right to continue the education. Even according to the respondents, the petitioner has not committed any offence, however, she was detained only on the ground that her father was arrayed as an accused. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed this Court to issue appropriate direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to go back to London to enable her to continue her studies.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in (Arockia Jeyabalan v. The Regional Passport Officer, Mount Road, Chennai and others) (2014) 4 Law Weekly 841 to contend that the object of the Look out Circular is to ensure the presen