APHC010502362026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27470 OF 2026 Between: 1. Dasari Nikhil, S/o. Dasari Sudarshanam, Aged 41 years, Occ Customer Service Agent, R/o. 9 Celsius Drive, Cranbourne, North Victoria, Australia 3977, Presently residing at D.No.10 Mandal, Krishna District 1. The Union of India, Rep.by the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi- 110011. 2. The Union of India, Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep.by its Commissioner Immigration, East Block, VIII level, V Sector, R.K. Pu New Delhi- 110022. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 4. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 5. The Additional Director General of Police, CID, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 522503. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27470 OF 2026 Dasari Nikhil, S/o. Dasari Sudarshanam, Aged 41 years, Occ Customer Service Agent, R/o. 9 Celsius Drive, Cranbourne, North Victoria, Australia 3977, Presently residing at D.No.10-138, Durgapuram Village, Gannavaram AND 1. The Union of India, Rep.by the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New 2. The Union of India, Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep.by its Commissioner Immigration, East Block, VIII level, V Sector, R.K. Pu 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 4. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, istrict- 522503. 5. The Additional Director General of Police, CID, Mangalagiri, Guntur District IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dasari Nikhil, S/o. Dasari Sudarshanam, Aged 41 years, Occ Customer Service Agent, R/o. 9 Celsius Drive, Cranbourne, North Victoria, Australia- 138, Durgapuram Village, Gannavaram ...Petitioner 1. The Union of India, Rep.by the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New 2. The Union of India, Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep.by its Commissioner Immigration, East Block, VIII level, V Sector, R.K. Puram, 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District- 522237. 4. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 5. The Additional Director General of Police, CID, Mangalagiri, Guntur District- 2 6. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Bhimavaram- 534201. 7. The Union of India, Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep.by its Commissioner Immigration, East Block, VIII level, V Sector, R.K. Puram, 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District- 522237. 4. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 5. The Additional Director General of Police, CID, Mangalagiri, Guntur District- 2 6. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Bhimavaram- 534201. 7. The Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, Pin Code- 534101 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in continuing look out circular/ direction against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 5 to 7 in connection with Crime No. 26 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavari District and preventing me from travelling India to Australia, as being illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued by 2nd Ministry of Home Affairs regarding issuance of respondent herein i.e LOC(Look out circular) and in violation Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 5 to 7 to withdraw or recall LOC issued against the petitioner, without objecting him from travel to abroad for attending to his job in Australia and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Look out circular issued against me connected to the Crime No. 26 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents: 3 The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the action of respondents in continuing the Look-Out Circular/direction against the petitioner at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in connection with Crime No. 26 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, West Godavari District, and thereby preventing the petitioner from travelling from India to Australia, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, contended that the petitioner is a citizen of Australia and holds an Australian Passport as well as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card. The petitioner married Addanki Nikhita of Krishna District and, after the marriage, due to differences between the couple, the petitioner's wife lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No. 26 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025, by Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He further submitted that, at the time of registration of the said crime, the petitioner was in London and had no knowledge that a Look-Out Circular had been opened against him. He further submitted that, when the petitioner arrived at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, on 07.09.2026, he was detained at the 4 immigration counter on the ground that a Look-Out Circular was pending against him. The petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the said Look-Out Circular. He further submitted that, on 16.09.2026, the petitioner submitted a written representation to respondent No.7-Station House Officer, seeking withdrawal/cancellation of the Look-Out Circular. However, no written communication withdrawing or cancelling the said Look-Out Circular has been furnished to the petitioner. The respondent authorities are not permitting the petitioner to travel to Australia on the ground that the said Look-Out Circular is still pending. Hence, prayed to direct the respondent authorities to withdraw the LOC issued against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Department submitted that the petitioner, without first approaching the Originating Agency seeking withdrawal/cancellation of the Look-Out Circular, has straightaway invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. They further contended that, in view of the availability of an alternative remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the registration of Crime No. 26 of 2025 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is 5 pending against the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the continuation of the Look-Out Circular issued in connection with the said crime. It is the specific contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not approached the competent authority seeking withdrawal/cancellation of the Look-Out Circular before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that, ordinarily, the aggrieved person should first approach the authority competent to consider the grievance before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In a petition seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioner is ordinarily required to demonstrate that a specific request or representation has been made to the competent authority and that the authority has failed or refused to consider the same. To entertain a Writ of Mandamus, it is a pre- condition that the aggrieved person should have approached the authorities competent against whom such a direction is sought for. The said representation/appeal acknowledged by the authorities competent must be available in the file of the authorities concerned. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the Originating Agency, which is the competent authority for seeking withdrawal/cancellation of the Look-Out Circular, by submitting an appropriate representation before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. 6 8. In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of matter, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission itself, with the following directions: i) The petitioner is at liberty to submit an appropriate application/representation before the Originating Agency seeking withdrawal/cancellation of the Look-Out Circular/Look-Out Notice issued in connection with Crime No.26 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025, of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station. ii) On submission of such application/representation, the Originating Agency shall consider and dispose of the same, by taking into consideration the applicable guidelines governing the issuance, continuation and withdrawal/cancellation of Look-Out Circulars, and shall pass a reasoned order within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of such application/representation. iii) The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 9. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 24.09.2026 MP 7 135 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.27470 of 2026 24.09.2026 MP