SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

C.Sivasankaran The appeal is, accordingly, rejected as being not maintainable. (A.P.S., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)

by ·

[10/4, 17:43] Sekarreporter 1: W.A.No. SR 49793 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.09.2020
DELIVERED ON : 29.09.2020
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR.A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.SR 49793 of 2020
C.Sivasankaran … Appellant
Vs.
1.Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO),
Bureau of Immigration,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
No.26, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
South Block, New Delhi – 110 001.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
Bank Securities and Frauds Branch,
No.36, Bellary Road, Ganga Nagar,
Bangalore – 32.
__________
Page 1 of 29
http://www.judis.nic.in
[10/4, 17:43] Sekarreporter 1: W.A.No. SR 49793 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.Sathish Parasaran
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Vijayan
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Chief Justice
The appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated
6.11.2019, whereby a writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a
declaration against a Look Out Circular issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs, Bureau of Immigration, as invalid and without
jurisdiction, has been dismissed. The question is, can the writ
petition giving rise to this appeal and the jurisdiction exercised by
the learned Single Judge be said to be an exercise of the criminal
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India so as to bar the maintainability of an intra-court appeal under
Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent?
2. The appellant is not an Indian citizen and is a Seychelles
national. He is a holder of a diplomatic passport issued by the
Republic of Seychelles. When he entered India on 6.8.2018, he was
__________
Page 3 of 29
http://www.judis.nic.in
[10/4, 17:43] Sekarreporter 1: W.A.No. SR 49793 of 2020
prosecutions pending against him appears to be justified and,
hence, the Look Out Circular is a consequence of the aforesaid
antecedents of the involvement of the appellant in criminal cases.
This being the position, the writ petition was instituted and was
rightly placed before the learned Single Judge who was having the
roster of dealing with writ petitions arising out of criminal matters.
The letter and intent, as well as the crux of the background in which
the writ petition was filed clearly relates to the criminal proceedings
pending against the appellant and, therefore, the nature of the
jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge would be a writ in
the criminal jurisdiction, hence a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause
15 of the Letters Patent of Madras High Court would not be
maintainable.
The appeal is, accordingly, rejected as being not maintainable.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
29.09.2020
Index : Yes
sasi
__________
Page 27 of 29
http://www.judis.nic.in

You may also like...