Point of Law : Travel restriction on accused - Recourse to issuance of LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal laws. It is also specified therein that in cases where there is no cognizable offence under the IPC or other penal laws, LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, Petition is heard finally.

3. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by travel restrictions imposed upon him. Although specific look out circular or any such direction is not the subject matter of the present Petition, as the Petitioner states that he was not aware of any such document, the grievance of the Petitioner is, that he was wrongly detained at the Mumbai Airport on 29/09/2018 by immigration offcials. The Petitioner was later released and then he was directed to contact Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a particular mobile number. According to the Petitioner, when he made attempts to contact on the said mobile number, there was no response. On a series of communications sent to the Respondent No. 2-CBI, inquiring as to why he was detained, the Petitioner did not receive any reply. According to the Petitioner, he is constrained to file the present Writ Petition, since he does not wish to attempt to travel abroad without any clarity in the matter, as he might be further detained at the airport, which would have an adverse effect on his reputation.

4. The Petitioner is a former Chairman of State Bank of India (SBI). It is stated that after his retirement from the said position, he is on the board of directors of reputed multinational companies and also banks, including the Standard Chartered Bank, London, due to which he is required to frequently travel abroad. The Petitioner states that on 19/02/2018, he received a letter from a special investigation team of Respondent no. 2-CBI asking him to remain present at the office of CBI at New Delhi for examination. This was in connection with offence registered against the owner of Kingfisher Airlines i.e. Vijay Mallya, pertaining to loan disbursed to the said Airlines during the tenure of the Petitioner as Chairman of the SBI. According to the Petitioner, on 29.03.2018, he appeared before Respondent no. 2-CBI and answered their questions on the said date and thereafter, he was never called for further questioning.

5. The Petitioner further states that even after the said date i.e. 29.03.2018, he travelled abroad on business and personal visits and every time he returned back to India. According to the Petitioner, he is not an accused in the aforesaid case concerning Kingfisher Airlines and he is also not an accused in any other criminal case. On this basis, it is submitted that action of the immigration officials at the Mumbai Airport of detaining the Petitioner on 29/09/2018 was wholly illegal and if it was at the behest of the CBI, there was no communication or explanation forthcoming from CBI as to why the Petitioner was sought to be restrained from travelling abroad. Since the Petitioner was not aware about any lookout circular (LOC) issued against him at the behest of the CBI, he had no alternative but to air his grievance in accordance with law.

6. It is in this backdrop that the Petitioner initially fled an Application, being Misc. Application No. 2093 of 2019, before the Court of Special Judge for CBI, Greater Bombay at Mumbai, seeking an appropriate order for quashing of the LOC, if any, issued against him at the behest of the CBI. In this Application, the Petitioner stated that he was neither an accused in the F.I.R. concerning investigation concerning Kingfisher Airlines nor was there any allegation of his involvement in any such offence. The Petitioner relied upon various Judgments to contend that the LOC, if any, deserved to be quashed. By order dated 25/02/2020, the aforesaid Court rejected the Application, primarily on the ground that LOC being an executive order, it could be appropriately challenged before a Constitutional Court and that since the said Court did not have inherent jurisdiction, it could not entertain the prayers made in the Application on behalf of the Petitioner.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner fled the present Writ Petition, challe