High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 01 MAD CK 0071

Nachimuthu Palanisamy vs The Foreign Residence Regulation Officer, Bureau of Imigration, Anna International Terminal, Chennai Airport, Chennai 27, The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, The Union of India and The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 5 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinod K. Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 30347 of 2011 and M.P. No''s. 1 and 2 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 262 words

Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

1.

The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the proceedings dated

20.12.2011 which reads as under:

From : FRPO,BOI,CHENNAI

DT. : 20/12/2011

As per the look out circular issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur the pax by name Nachimuthu Palanisamy holding passport No.

G4773987 should not be allowed to leave India without the permission of the originator. As per the intimtion received from SP, Tiruppur the case

against the above pax is pending and hence he should not be allowed to leave the country without court''s permission.

Accordingly, the pax has been offloaded.

2.

The reading of the impugned order shows that the criminal case is pending against the petitioner in which the petitioner has been granted

anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. Sec. 438(2)(iii) reads as follows:

A condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

3.

The petitioner therefore, no locus standi to challenge the impugned order as it is in consonance with law. The remedy of the petitioner lies in the

criminal Court where the case is pending, for grant of permission to visit China.

4.

In view of the fact that remedy of the petitioner lies somewhere else, this petition being not competent is ordered to be dismissed. However,

liberty is granted to the petitioner to move appropriate petition in the criminal Court for permission to visit China. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

No cost.