IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance and renewal of Look Out Circulars (LOC) must align with the legal provisions and principles outlined in the relevant Office Memorandum, and must be justified by valid reasons in accordance with the law.

ORDER :

Heard Mrs.Jyothisri Vankina, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 and learned standing counsel for respondents 5 and 6.

2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

“to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the actions of the respondents No.1 and 2 in preventing the petitioner herein from traveling outside country citing Look Out Circular without providing any details as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently recall the Look Out Circulars issued in my name upon the instructions of Originators respondent Nos.5 and 6.

PERUSED THE RECORD :

3. The relevant portion of the final report dt. 29.06.2022 filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi, forwarded to the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Ranchi, Jarkhand is extracted hereunder :

“During further investigation, the allegation regarding false claim of expenditure of Rs. 98 crore on repair and maintenance could not be substantiated. Further. during further investigation, no evidence could be gathered against FIR named accused person Sh. N. Prithvi Teja, Director of M/s Ranchi Expressways Ltd.; M/s Kota & Co and officials of the consortium of Banks led by Canara Bank for making them criminal liable in the case.

This supplementary charge sheet is filed against (1) M/s Ranchi Expressways Ltd. and (2) M/s Madhucon Project Ltd. u/s 120-B r/w 420 IPC, and against (3) Sh. K. Babu Rao, Managing Partner, M/s Sree Nagendra Constructions, Khammam; (4) Sh. B. Sudhakara Rao, Managing Partner, M/s Ragini Infrastructures, Vijayawada; (5) Sh. P. Suresh, Partner, M/s Usha Projects, Hyderabad and (6) Sh. Ramashray Singh, Proprietor, M/s Shree B.R. Visions, Chandauli (U.P.) u/s 120-B r/w 409, 420 and 477A of IPC for taking cognizance and for issuing necessary process against the accused persons to face the trial.

It is further prayed that permission may kindly be granted for returning the un- relied documents seized in this case.

4. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition in brief, is as under :

a) The petitioner was prevented from travelling by the immigration officials at Kolkata Airport stating that there was a Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not provided with any details regarding the same.

b) Thereafter, the petitioner found that there were some bank related issues originating from companies run by the petitioner’s father and since the petitioner is shown as a director in the same, the LOC had been issued. However, the petitioner is not an active participant in the Company affairs.

c) Aggrieved by the said LOC, the petitioner has filed a RTI Application dated 25.02.2023 with Central Public Information Officer, Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad seeking information and all documents on Look Out Circular' if any issued against the petitioner Passport bearing No. Z4602920, within 48 Hours. However, the petitioner did not receive any reply for the same. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal on the said RTI with the Appellate Authority.within 48 Hours. However, the petitioner did not receive any reply for the same. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal on the said RTI with the Appellate Authority.

d) Thereafter, the Deputy Passport Officer, Hyderabad & CPIO has issued a reply dated 08.03.2023 to the petitioner’s R.T.I. and informed that no L.O.C. record was found in their office against the petitioner’s Passport Number and the Appellate Authority upon verifying the record, confirmed vide order dated 17.03.2023 that the said authority agrees with the order issued by the Public Information Officer,