The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be restricted without due process.

JUDGMENT :

(Surepalli Nanda, J.)

Heard Sri Vivek Reddy, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri K.Prateek Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on record and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 and the same is extracted hereunder:-

“Learned Government Pleader for Home takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and submits that there are about 10 cases registered against the petitioner and thus, seeks time to file counter in the matter. List the matter after Summer Vacation, 2025.”

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

DISCUSSION:-

3. The case of the appellant in brief is that on 18.05.2025 at Donnington Pl Ashburn, Virginia, USA, a special function for book launch is scheduled on the occasion of 15th Death Anniversary of appellants’ father one late Sri Kontham Bakka Reddy and therefore, it is necessary for the appellant to travel and stay in the United States of America between 09.05.2025 to 11.06.2025 for the said purpose, but how ever, though the appellant sought an interim direction in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the appellant by suspending the Lookout circular/ lookout notice, if any, issued against the appellant/ petitioner to visit USA for a period of two (02) months, no interim order w as granted in favour of the appellant since this Court vide its order, dated 01.05.2025 based on the representation of the learned Government Pleader that ‘10’ cases are registered against the appellant/ petitioner and duly considering the request of the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents for grant of time for filing counter affidavit directed the matter to be listed after summer vacation for the purpose of filing counter affidavit in the matter and aggrieved by the same, the appellant w as constrained to file the present Writ Appeal.

4. Learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant how ever disputes the said submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents that appellant w as involved in ten (10) criminal cases referring to the statement and the averments at page No.6 of the affidavit filed by the appellant/ petitioner in support of the present Writ Appeal and contends that out of ‘10’ cases referred to at page No.6 of the tabular statement, it is only in respect of cases at serial No.1 & 10 that the appellant is arrayed as an accused and in the rest of the other cases No.2 to 9, the appellant is not arrayed as an accused and therefore, the appellant is entitled to travel abroad.

5. Learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly puts-forth the following submissions:-

i) In view of the order of this Court, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025, the appellant is not in a position to attend the book launch function of appellant’s late father on 18.05.2025 at Donnington Pl Ashburn, Virginia, USA and therefore, serious injustice is caused to the appellant.

ii) The present w rit appeal is maintainable as per the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Arvind Kumar Jain and Others. Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in AI R 2007 MP 276 and in particular placed reliance on the observations at para Nos.27 & 31 of the said judgment in support of appellant’s case.

iii) The present Writ Appeal is maintainable as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Another reported in 2023 1 SCC 634, dated 14.03.2022 and in particular placed reliance on the observations made at para No.19 of the said judgment.

iv) The impugned order in the present Writ Appeal, dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13822 of 2025 had trappings of finality in as much as the said orders adversely affected appellant’s valuable right to life and personal liberty.

v) The appellant is