Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1455 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India (respondent No.3) - restraint from travelling abroad - Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 - right to travel abroad as enshrined in Art.21 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- Such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure - Even in 2019, in Satish Chandra Verma [2019 (4) TMI 1765 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court which affirmed the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing permission to a member of the Indian Police Service from travelling abroad by rejecting his interim application in a pending case before the Tribunal. It held that the appellant had a fundamental right to travel abroad and that right cannot be infringed on the ground that vigilance clearance has not been given. The non-supply of a copy of the LOC to the subject of the LOC at the time the subject is stopped at the airport for travel abroad, non-supply of reasons for issuing LOC , and absence of a post decisional hearing to the subject of the LOC, is not just, fair and reasonable procedure. It is violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India - When there is admittedly not even an FIR registered against the petitioner, and there is no question of her being accused of any non-cognizable offence, no LOC could have been issued by respondent No.3 to detain the petitioner. At best, the respondent No.3 could have only given information to respondent No.2 about the arrival/departure of the subject according to the OM dt. 22.02.2021. No exceptional case or any adverse effect on the economic interest of India has been made out either in the original request dt. 28.12.2021 made by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 or in the reply/affidavits and recourse could not have been taken for a coercive process like issuance of LOC - the quantum of the alleged default by the borrower by itself cannot be the basis for seeking issuance of an extreme process like an LOC for restricting the personal liberty of the petitioner to travel outside the country without something more. The OM itself does not draw any line about the quantum of default by a borrower to a financial institution which would be considered detrimental to the sovereignty or integrity of India or to the economic interest of India and a quantum of default which would not fall in the said category. There has been non-application of mind by respondent No.3 while issuing LOC dt. 28.12.2021 against the petitioner, and mechanically it appears to have been issued without there being any material to show that the petitioner would fall in the category of a person against whom an LOC is permitted to be issued by the guidelines framed in that regard by respondent No.1 - The LOC dt. 28.12.2021 issued by respondents No.1, 3 & 4 against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.2 is set aside. Petition allowed.
|