Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to respondents to remove the entries made in the records and computers of Chennai Airport and the High Commission of India in Sri Lanka reflecting the Look Out Circular prohibiting the smooth departure, arrival of the petitioner at the Chennai Airport, thereby enabling him to have the departure and arrival renewal of visa like the other regular passenger without any obstruction whatsoever. 2. When the matter came up on 11.04.2012, this court directed notice to be served on the respondents. Accordingly, notice was served and Mrs.Seethalakshmi, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 1 to 3. She has also filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 sworn to by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of home Affairs, Chennai, dated 20.6.2012. 3. Even as per the admission of the petitioner, he was the Srilankan national and admittedly a foreigner. At present, he is 50 years old. He had entered India in the year 1988 under Student visa for the purpose of studying MBBS course and he joined the Madras Medical College. Even after 24 years, he has not finished his MBBS course. He is now studying final Part-II MBBS degree course. The petitioner by filing several writ petitions had managed to extend his student visa. The Visa was valid upto 13.7.2012. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case and was accused in the Chennai Airport Bomb blast case of the year 1984. He was convicted by the District Sessions judge, Chengalpet in 1987 in S.C.No.18 of 1987 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He had filed an appeal before this court in Criminal Appeal No.704 of 1989. He was acquitted during April, 2000. 4. It was the case of the respondents that after an expiry of his initial visa period on 10.1.1991, the petitioner did not come to the office of the Chief Immigration Officer for extension of Visa for more than 11 years. He was unauthorisedly overstaying as a foreigner and that it was a visa violation. He came to the first respondent's office only in May, 2002 for his exit clearance. The exit clearance was given by the first respondent after obtaining an approval of the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of India. He was unauthorisedly overstaying as a foreigner and that it was a visa violation. He came to the first respondent's office only in May, 2002 for his exit clearance. The exit clearance was given by the first respondent after obtaining an approval of the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of India. He had visited India twice on six months Tourist visa in 2002 and 2003 and continued his studies. It was stated that the foreigner holding tourist visa cannot pursue his studies on a tourist visa. Thus, he had committed one more visa violation. During his departure on 28.09.2003, he was granted departure clearance after stamping on his passport as "Entry Refused" considering his visa violations and his previous overstay in India. As per the rules, the ban entry was issued by the Home Secretary to the Government of India. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.No.34586 of 2003 to direct the respondents to issue and permit his entry into India. this court had directed the respondents to consider his student visa application. Accordingly, he was granted student visa to enable him to appear for the MBBS examinations. Further, the student visa issued on 14.01.2008 is valid till 13.07.2012. He was registered and a registration certificate / residential permit was issued to him. A Look Out Circular was opened and issued against the petitioner for his past overstay and violation of visa norms. The petitioner was also accused of serious cases. 5. It was stated by the petitioner that the pendency of the Look Out Circular is creating problems and he is put to harassment and unreasonable delay and hardship and he was being retained by the officials due to Look Out Circular (LOC). He was further informed that unless that circular is withdrawn, he will be continuously harassed. Hence the writ petition. 6. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that despite his name was found in the LOC, he was granted student visa till 13.7.2012. The delay in immigration clearance during arrival and departure is to verify his papers and will not hinder his studies. He was made to undergo only routine immigration procedure. The immigration officials are not prohibiting his arrival and departure and that his rights are not violated. It is because of his past visa violations and undesirable activities, his name is still figuring in the LOC. He was made to undergo only routine immigration procedure. The immigration officials are not prohibiting his arrival and departure and that his rights are not violated. It is because of his past visa violations and undesirable activities, his name is still figuring in the LOC. The visa was issued only to complete his studies and that issuance of visa will not make the LOC inoperative. 7. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.M.Seenivasagan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is having valid visa. Hence detaining him on the basis of the LOC is a clear harassment. His right as a human being is violated. He referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in ManekaGandhi v. Union of Indiareported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 and referred to the following passage found in paragraph 48 which reads as follows: "48. In SatwantSingh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer Government of India, New Delhi this Court ruled by majority that the expression “personal liberty” which occurs in Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to travel abroad and that no person can be deprived of that right except according to procedure established by law. The Passports Act which was enacted by Parliament in 1967 in order to comply with that decision prescribes the procedure whereby an application for a passport may be granted fully or partially, with or without any endorsement, and a passport once granted may later be revoked or impounded. But the mere prescription of some kind of procedure cannot ever meet the mandate of Article 21. The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. The question whether the procedure prescribed by a law which curtails or takes away the personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 is reasonable or not has to be considered not in the abstract or on hypothetical considerations like the provision for a full-dressed hearing as in a courtroom trial, but in the context, primarily, of the purpose which the Act is intended to achieve and of urgent situations which those who are charged with the duty of administering the Act may be called upon to deal with. Secondly, even the fullest compliance with the requirements of Article 21 is not the journey's end because, a law which prescribes fair and reasonable procedure for curtailing or taking away the personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 has still to meet a possible challenge under other provisions of the Constitution like, for example, Articles 14 and 19. If the holding in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras that the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are mutually exclusive were still good law, the right to travel abroad which is part of the right of personal liberty under Article 21 could only be found and located in that article and in no other. But in the Bank Nationalisation case (R.C. Cooper v. Union of India) the majority held that the assumption in A.K. Gopalan that certain articles of the Constitution exclusively deal with specific matters cannot be accepted as correct. Though the Bank Nationalisation case was concerned with the inter-relationship of Articles 31 and 19 and not of Articles 21 and 19, the basic approach adopted therein as regards the construction of fundamental rights guaranteed in the different provisions of the Constitution categorically discarded the major premise of the majority judgment in A.K. Gopalan as incorrect. That is how a seven-Judge Bench in ShambhuNath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal assessed the true impact of the ratio of the Bank Nationalisation case on the decision in A.K. Gopalan. In ShambhuNath Sarkar it was accordingly held that a law of preventive detention has to meet the challenge not only of Articles 21 and 22 but also of Article 19(1)(d). Later, a five-Judge Bench in HaradhanSaha v. State of West Bengal adopted the same approach and considered the question whether the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 violated the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d). Thus, the inquiry whether the right to travel abroad forms a part of any of the freedoms mentioned in Article 19(1) is not to be shut out at the threshold merely because that right is a part of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. Thus, the inquiry whether the right to travel abroad forms a part of any of the freedoms mentioned in Article 19(1) is not to be shut out at the threshold merely because that right is a part of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. I am in entire agreement with brother Bhagwati when he says: “The law must, therefore, now be taken to be well-settled that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of ‘personal liberty’ and there is consequently no infringement of the fundamental right conferred by Article 21, such law, insofar as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right under Article 19 would have to meet the challenge of that article.” It is not clear as to how the said passage will have any assistant to the petitioner as Article 19 will apply only to the citizens of India and not to Foreigners. 8. Thereafter, the learned Senior Counsel referred to Universal Declaration of Human Rights (for short UDHR) and referred to Article 13 which reads as follows : "Article 13: (1)Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. (2)Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." 9. Even the said right granted is circumscribed by Article 29(2) which reads as follows: "(2)In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." (Emphasis added) 10. It must be noted that Article 19 which confers certain fundamental rights on the citizens of India more particularly the right to move freely throughout the territory of India can be restricted by reasonable restrictions found in the said Article. It is open to the Central Government to restrict the movement of a foreigner in India as well as the place of residence and ambit of movement. It is open to the Central Government to restrict the movement of a foreigner in India as well as the place of residence and ambit of movement. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Supdt., Presidency Jail, Calcuttareported in (1955) 1 SCR 1284 = AIR 1955 SC 367 and in paragraphs 13 and 33 it was held as follows: 13.....The legislative competence of Parliament to deal with this question is, we think, clear; and this covers not only Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act but also the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Act 31 of 1946) insofar as it deals with the powers of expulsion and the right of the Central Government to restrict the movements of foreigners in India and prescribe the place of their residence and the ambit of their movements in the land. 33. Article 19 of the Constitution confers certain fundamental rights of freedom on the citizens of India, among them, the right “to move freely throughout the territory of India” and “to reside and settle in any part of India”, subject only to laws that impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of those rights in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. No corresponding rights are given to foreigners. All that is guaranteed to them is protection to life and liberty in accordance with the laws of the land. This is conferred by Article 21 which is in the following terms: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. 11. The rights of a foreigner in India has also been considered by the Supreme Court in relation to Article 19 and it was held that Article 19(1)(d) and (e) are unavailable to foreigners and no provisions of Article 14 can be invoked to obtain the fundamental right to a foreigner as held by the Supreme Court in State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakmareported in1994 Supp (1) SCC 615and in paragraph 75, it was observed as follows : "75. It is true that fundamental right is available to a foreigner as held in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India: (SCC p. 562, para 13) “The next point taken on behalf of the petitioners, that the foreigners also enjoy some fundamental rights under the Constitution of this country, is also of not much help to them. The fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country.” As such Articles 19(1)(d) and (e) are unavailable to foreigners because those rights are conferred only on the citizens. Certainly, the machinery of Article 14 cannot be invoked to obtain that fundamental right. Rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and (e) are expressly withheld to foreigners. 12. Even the judgment of Maneka Gandhi's case (cited supra) is only referable to Article 19(1). Even there the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad by the Indian citizens itself is not the fundamental right and is subject to restrictions. 13. Since the petitioner referred to the pendency of the Look Out Circular (LOC), it has to be seen as to what is meant by the LOC. Look out circular (LOC)is a circular letterused by authorities to check whether a traveling person is wanted by the police. It may be used at immigrationchecks at international borders(like International airportsor sea ports). In India, LOC has a given proforma which have identification parameters of criminals and help police to catch absconding criminals and stopping them from crossing borders. 14. The Look Out Circulars are opened to trace the absconding criminals and also to prevent and monitor effectively the entry or exit of persons who may be required by law enforcement authorities. The basic substantive guidelines regarding the publication of the LOCs in relation to Indian citizens issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) enunciate the following four cardinal principles: "1. The request for opening of LOC is required to be made to all immigration Check posts in the country in the Official Format prescribed by the MHA. 2. The basic substantive guidelines regarding the publication of the LOCs in relation to Indian citizens issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) enunciate the following four cardinal principles: "1. The request for opening of LOC is required to be made to all immigration Check posts in the country in the Official Format prescribed by the MHA. 2. The request for opening of LOC must invariably be issued with the approval of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India/Joint secretary in the State Government/Superintendent of Police concerned at the district level. 3. The originating agency must ensure that complete identifying personal particulars of the person, in respect of whom the LOC is to be opened, are clearly mentioned in the prescribed proforma. The LOC will not be opened for less than three identity parameters other than name of the subject. 4. An LOC is valid for a period of one year. However, in case the originating agency wants to extend the validity beyond one year it can ask for the extension before the expiry of the one year period. If no request is made for the extension of the LOC within the stipulated period of one year, the Immigration Officer concerned is authorized to suspend the LOC." 15. It is stated that statutory backing for the issuance of LOC can be placed to Passport Act, 1967, sections 10A and 10B. Section 10A gives power to a designated officer to suspend passport or render a travel document invalid for a period of 4 weeks and section 10B provides that every intimation given by the Central Government or the designated officer, to any immigration authority at an airport or any other point of embarkation or immigration, restricting or in any manner prohibiting the departure from India or any holder of the Passport or travel document. The other statutory provision relied upon is Section 41 of Cr. P.C. which requires police to arrest any person without warrants. The LOC’s are issued at the behest of different agencies in accordance with Ministry of Home Affairs’ Circular No. 15022/13/78-F.1 dated 5th September, 1979, either to monitor the arrival/ departure of foreigners and Indians or to restrict arrival/departure of foreigners or Indians. 16. P.C. which requires police to arrest any person without warrants. The LOC’s are issued at the behest of different agencies in accordance with Ministry of Home Affairs’ Circular No. 15022/13/78-F.1 dated 5th September, 1979, either to monitor the arrival/ departure of foreigners and Indians or to restrict arrival/departure of foreigners or Indians. 16. Considering that the petitioner is a foreigner, has right if any is subject to restrictions imposed by the Central Government, the contention of the petitioner that the LOC should be withdrawn cannot be countenanced especially in the context of the stand taken by the respondents as it is in the nature of surveillance done by the Government over a foreigner. Even in case of surveillance of an Indian citizen, the Supreme Court while upholding the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations in GobindV. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in AIR 1975 SC 1378 : (1975) 2 SCC 148 , had struck a note of caution and in paragraph 28, it was observed as follows: "28. The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from them which one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute." 17. If this is the right which is available to the Indian citizen, it is unthinkable the petitioner who is admittedly a foreigner seeks to set aside the LOC issued against him especially in the context in which the respondents have started LOC against him. Under section 11 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 it was stated as follows: "11.Power to impose restrictions on movements, etc.-The civil authority may, by order in writing, direct that any foreigner shall comply with such conditions as may be specified in the order in respect of- (1) his place of residence; (2) his movements; (3) his association with any person or class of persons specified in the order; and (4) his possession of such articles as may be specified in the order." 18. Besides this, under the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 and the rules known as the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, rule Nos.5, 6(1) and 7(3) reads as follows: "5. Besides this, under the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 and the rules known as the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, rule Nos.5, 6(1) and 7(3) reads as follows: "5. Report by foreigners on arrival in and departure from India by land- Every foreigner who enters or leaves India by land shall, on being required so to do by the Registration Officer of the place of arrival or departure, as the case may be, furnish to him a true statement of the particulars set out in Form D. 6. Report by a foreigner of his address in India, etc.-(1)Every foreigner entering India or resident in India shall present in person or through an authorised representative to the appropriate Registration Officer specified in rule 7, a report (hereinafter referred to as a registration report) within the time specified in that rule: Provided that no such report shall be necessary in the case of a foreigner who enters India on a visa valid for a period of not more than one hundred and eighty days and who does not remain in India beyond the said period. 7(3) Every foreigner presenting a registration report shall furnish to the Registration Officer such information as may be in his possession for the purpose of satisfying the said officer as to the accuracy of t he particulars specified therein and shall, on being required to do sign the registration report in the presence of the said officer and shall thereupon be entitled to receive from the said officer a certificate of registration in Part III of Form A: 19. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that whenever he leaves or enters India, he is subjected to questioning by the authorities due to LOC can be said to be a violation of right of the petitioner as per the law made in India and even as per the International Convention referred to by him. Hence there is no case made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.