Preventing a person from traveling abroad cannot be a mode of recovery of dues by the bank. The value of the secured property exceeded the amount due from the petitioner to the bank, and the bank's actions were deemed arbitrary and unfair by the court.

JUDGMENT

Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J. - Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction, declaring that the actions of the respondents in issuing an endorsement of cancellation on the passport of the petitioner by respondent No. 2 and not permitting the petitioner to travel from Bengaluru to Philippines as highly arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law; for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, declaring that the actions of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in preventing the petitioner from traveling out of Country on work as highly arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shashikiran Shetty for Smt. Latha S. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri. Shanthi Bhushan for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri. Parashuram, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner along with her husband had obtained loan from the 3rd respondent-Bank on 19.12.2014. The property which is offered as security to the loan obtained by them stands in joint name of the petitioner as well as her husband Mr. Rakesh Kumar. It is submitted that the petitioner and her husband are due in a sum of Rs. 66,11,868/- as on 13.06.2022. It is also submitted that the petitioner and her husband had not paid the installments from September 2019 to the 3rd respondent-Bank. The reason for not repaying the loan is that, due to differences between the petitioner and her husband, they are before the Family Court in M.C. No. 5079/2019 praying for a judgment and decree to dissolve their marriage.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, to tender her evidence in the pending divorce proceedings, the petitioner came down to India on 01.06.2022; on 02.06.2022, the petitioner tendered her evidence in the Matrimonial proceedings and on 05.06.2022, she was to travel back to Philippines where she is working. It is submitted that the petitioner had come to India leaving her two minor children aged about 10 and 8 years at Philippines. The petitioner was to leave India on 05.06.2022, but she was prevented from leaving the Country by the first respondent, putting cancellation seal on her passport and she was prevented from traveling to abroad at the request of the 3rd respondent-Bank. The first respondent issued Look out Circular (for short "LOC") against the petitioner.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shashikiran Shetty would submit that action of the respondents in preventing the petitioner from traveling outside the Country is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent could not have requested for issuance of LOC as the issuance of LOC is not a recovery proceedings. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has initiated recovery proceedings and has brought the property offered as security for sale, to realize the dues from the petitioner and her husband. It is submitted that the property was brought to sale on three occasions and the 3rd respondent-Bank could not realize the amount due. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the value of the property, according to the valuation of the 3rd respondent-Bank is around Rs. 75,00,000/- whereas the market value of the property is nearly Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Thus, he submits that when security is available, the 3rd respondent-Bank could not have resorted to request for issuance of LOC, so as to recover the amount from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent-Bank has not made any effort to recover the amount from the husband of the petitioner.

6. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that LOC is requested by the 3rd respondent-Bank in terms of the Official Memorandum (for short "OM") dated 4th October 2010, which is revised from time to time. He su