The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to suspend a Look Out Circular (LOC) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002 to enable an individual to travel, subject to specified conditions.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - By this order I shall decide an application being CM aPPL. 3397/2022 filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

'In the light of the above, it is the humble prayer of the applicant herein that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to:

(a) allow the present application;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or such appropriate writ directing Respondents to produce all documents/instructions/ letters/ circulars/notifications/office memoranda/orders of the Identification and Review Committee pursuant to which a Look Out Circular has been opened against the Petitioner and pending production of all such documents/ instructions/ letters/ circulars/notifications/office memoranda/orders of the Identification and Review Committee, to stay all actions/proceedings/coercive measures taken against the Petitioner by Respondents No. 2 and 3;

(c) Pass an ad-interim relief that no coercive action or any other action (that impinges upon the fundamental rights, including as to travel, of the Petitioner) such as questioning/detention be taken or pursued with respect to Petitioner, that may render the present writ petition as infructuous, pending adjudication of the present writ; and

(d) Pass any other orders or direction as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.'

2. Mr. Mehta stated that the petitioner who is citizen of Singapore be permitted to travel by suspending the lookout circular ('LOC' hereinafter) for a period as deemed to be fit and appropriate by this Court. according to him, the LOC has been issued by the respondent No.2 at the request of respondent No.3. The petitioner was a partner of the firm M/s. United Exports between the year 2013 and 2015, after which the petitioner resigned from the partnership firm, which was the principal borrower. Between the period of 2013 and 2015, the credit facilities were renewed in the year 2014 and 2015 by the respondent No.3 Bank. He stated that the petitioner was a guarantor to the credit facilities taken by the firm, M/s. United Exports.

3. He stated for non-payment of loan by the firm, the same has been declared as NPa as a result of which the firm, the partners and the petitioner have been declared as willful defaulters. The petitioner has also challenged the declaration of willful defaulter by the respondent No.3 Bank.

4. That on December 19, 2021, the petitioner was detained by respondent No.3 at Indira Gandhi International airport, Terminal 3, Delhi in front of his wife and his eight year old daughter while travelling to Singapore.

5. Upon seeking explanation and reasons for such detention from the respondent No.2, the petitioner was informed that such an action has been initiated at the behest of respondent No.3 resulting in an action of opening an LOC against the petitioner. Neither the respondent No.2 nor the respondent No.3 has provided the LOC.

6. according to Mr. Mehta, aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner wrote a letter dated January 04, 2022 and requested for disclosure of necessary documents/information to enable him to respond and challenge the same, to which no response has been received. Mr. Mehta would submit that the issue pertaining to guarantee is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal being Original application No. 1245 of 2018 filed by the respondent No.3 and therein the petitioner has filed the application seeking his deletion from the array of parties on the ground that he is not a guarantor to the credit facilities extended to principal borrower since the deed of guarantee, provisionally executed was obtained by means of coercion. The said application is still pending. It is also noted that the respondent No.3 has also issued notice under provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002. He also stated that the other partners i.e., father, brother and mother of the petitioner have challenged the declaration of willful defaulter by the respondent No.