The economic interests of India and bilateral relations with other countries can be valid grounds for the issuance of Look-Out Circulars (LOCs) against individuals, as per the relevant Office Memoranda.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The Court:

1. The petitioner is a non-resident Indian and holds a passport issued by the Republic of India, bearing Passport No.Z5300713, which was renewed and reissued on April 24, 2019. The place of issuance was Singapore.

2. The petitioner holds a Permanent Resident Card bearing Identity Card No.S7762646H issued by the Government of Singapore and conducts business primarily at Singapore. The said Permanent Resident Card is valid till November 15, 2021.

3. The petitioner carries on trading through his company at Singapore and applied for credit facilities with various banks, including the 3branch of the respondent no.3 (UCO Bank) at Singapore. Respondent no.3 is a Government undertaking bank of India.

4. Admittedly, the High Court at Singapore passed an order on October 9, 2020 in Case no. HC/CWU 137/2020, directing the petitioner's company to be wound up.

5. Vide order dated November 19, 2020, the Singapore High Court, in Case No. HC/B 1472/2020, issued a Bankruptcy Order against the petitioner.

6. Such orders were issued on applications of financing companies (not respondent no.3).

7. In connection with his business, the petitioner travels to various destinations including India. On October 8, 2020, allegedly in connection with his business, the petitioner had travelled to Tanzania on a Business VISA and returned to India on January 13, 2021. On January 25, 2021, the petitioner was scheduled to travel to Tanzania again and accordingly boarded a flight from Kolkata to Mumbai for the said purpose on January 24, 2021 arriving at Mumbai on January 25, 2021. The petitioner went for immigration clearance, but was disallowed to cross the immigration channel. The Immigration Officer concerned informed the petitioner that such restraint was imposed pursuant to a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued on a complaint filed by respondent no.3. The LOC prohibits the petitioner from travelling beyond the territorial borders of India, although his domestic travels within the country are exempt.

8. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, challenging the said Look-Out Circular.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there arose no occasion for such Look-Out Circular to be issued for the petitioner in India. It is argued that the petitioner has been carrying on business legally and travelling to various countries, including India, on valid passport and Visas. It is also contended that the petitioner does not have any business with respondent no.3 but only with its Singapore Branch; as such, respondent no. 3, which is situated in India, cannot have any cause of action to lodge a complaint asking for an LOC to be issued against the petitioner.

10. The winding up and bankruptcy orders passed by the Singapore Court, under the law of Singapore, could not have any bearing on the present Look-Out Circular. It is submitted that the respondents have not established any violation by the petitioner of any Indian law and/or any threat to the sovereignty, security or integrity of India and/or the economic interests of India, sufficient to justify issuance of the LOC.

11. Hence, it is argued that the impugned LOC is illegal and ought to be set aside.

12. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3-Bank submits, by placing reliance in the relevant Office Memoranda issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners' Division) that sufficient cause of action was made out by the Bank for the issuance of such Circular.

13. It is argued that the respondent no.3 is a nationalized bank and a Government of India undertaking. Thus, any transaction pertaining to any of its branches, including the Singapore Branch, directly affects the interest of respondent no.3 and, in turn, the economy of the country and the larger public interest of the Indian populace.

14. Although no Indian law has been violated, it is argued that the petitioner has been declared to be bankrupt and his company