JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The present petition raises an important question as to the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as to whether the expression "personal liberty" occurring in the said Article includes the right to travel abroad. Second important question that arises is whether the refusal to grant permission to travel abroad results in the infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India ?

3. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal refusing to grant permission to travel abroad for a limited time from 09.06.2022 to 17.06.2022 to attend the marriage of the petitioner’s sister-in-law.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :

The Petitioner is the personal guarantor of a private limited company (respondent No.2) engaged in electricity and power generation. To establish the Power Plant, a consortium led by Axis Bank Limited and another group of lenders, namely L & T Infrastructure Finance, State Bank of Mysore, Corporation Bank, State Bank of India and respondent No.1, financed the project. Proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are pending in relation to the respondent No.2 – Company before NCLT, Mumbai and the same is under liquidation order passed by the NCLT dated 15.03.2018.

5. Original Application No.330/2016 came to be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, for recovery of amount against the Petitioner and other directors of respondent No.2 – Company for a sum of Rs.110,15,00,000/-. In the said Original Application, respondent No.1 – Bank sought interim relief restraining the Petitioner from travelling abroad and for impounding the passport of the Petitioner. On 18.01.2018, the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed an order restraining the Petitioner from travelling abroad.

6. Since the marriage of the sister-in-law of the Petitioner is scheduled in Turkey from 12.06.2022 till 14.06.2022, the Petitioner filed an application with the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur seeking permission to travel abroad for a short duration seeking relaxation of a condition imposed by order dated 18.01.2018. However, the said application came to be rejected by an order dated 23.05.2022. Therefore, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.05.2022 by way of the present petition.

7. This Court, on 31.05.2022, issued notice to the respondents, making it returnable on 06.06.2022.

8. On 06.06.2022, Mr A. T. Purohit, learned Advocate for respondent No.1, appeared and sought time to prepare himself regarding the position of the law considering the questions involved in the petition. The matter was therefore fixed at 2.30 p.m.

9. We have heard Mr. Akshay Naik, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, along with Mr. D. V. Chauhan, learned Advocate and Mr. A. T. Purohit, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 -Bank.

10. Mr. Naik, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted that right to travel abroad had been recognised as the fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that a person could not be deprived of his personal liberty in the absence of specific ‘enacted law'. According to him, existing provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Hereinafter referred to as “said Act”) do not confer power on the Tribunal to issue a direction restraining a person from travelling abroad. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments in the cases of State Bank of India Vs. Prafulchandra V. Patel and reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Guj. 1055, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Kapil Puri and Ors. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del. 7377 and Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India and Ors reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048.

11. Per contra, Mr. A. T. Purohit, learned