SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Shivani Saxena - Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8084 of 2020 & CM Appl. 11855 of 2022
Decided On : 22-03-2022




The existence of an alternative remedy in the Special Court constrains the High Court from maintaining a writ petition concerning a Look-out Circular, underscoring the principle of jurisdictional limits in rights violations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 32 and 226 - Maintenance of fundamental rights - Writ petition challenging Look-out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner. The court found that the writ was not maintainable as there existed an efficacious alternative remedy available in the Special Court. The petitioner should approach the Special Court for resolution regarding the LOC and travel permissions. (Paras 6, 14, 35)

(B) Legal Principles - Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedies - The court observed that while the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be taken away, the High Court practices self-restraint when an alternative remedy is available; it does not entertain writ petitions in such cases unless there are grounds for violation of fundamental rights. The petitioner's fundamental right to travel was acknowledged, but the court emphasized the need to respect the jurisdiction of the Special Court where an ongoing complaint was pending. (Paras 29, 30)

(C) Issues - The court framed issues concerning the maintainability of the writ based on the existence of the ongoing proceedings in the Special Court and the implications of the LOC on the petitioner's travel rights. (Paras 28, 35)

(D) Findings of Court - The High Court determined that the objection regarding maintainability raised by the respondents was valid. The LOC's issuance must be addressed in the appropriate jurisdictional court, directing the petitioner to pursue relief through the Special Court. (Paras 6, 35) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court concluded that the ongoing nature of proceedings in the Special Court renders the High Court's involvement unnecessary, affirming that the Special Court is competent to adjudicate on matters concerning the LOC and travel permissions. (Paras 28, 34) (F) Result - The writ petition was dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Special Court for necessary reliefs. (Para 36)

Table of Content
1. petitioner must approach special court (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant's hinders by loc must be considered (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments regarding loc's issuance (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. petitioner's right to travel as a fundamental right (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. writ jurisdiction should entertain fundamental rights (Para 14 , 15)
6. alternative remedy before special court (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. jurisdiction on maintainability of writ petitions (Para 21 , 22)
8. court's refusal to entertain writ based on time elapsed (Para 23 , 24)
9. compliance with article 226 based on objections raised (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
10. final decision based on the special court's jurisdiction (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
11. final conclusion on the closure of the petition (Para 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--By this order, I shall decide the objection taken by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for the respondent No. 1 appearing with Mr. Amit Mahajan (who appears for respondents) that the present petition shall not be maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner must approach the concerned Special Court where the Complaint Case No. 75/2019 filed by the respondent No.1, of which cognizance has been taken by the Special Court by issuing summons to the petitioner herein for appearance on April 30, 2022 is pending. By this order I shall also decide the application filed by the petitioner being CM APPL.11855/2022, wherein the following prayers have been made:

    "In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated herein above, it is hereby most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may:

    i. Direct the suspension of LOC issued against the Petitioner from 14.03.2022 to 29.04.2022 and further allow her to travel to Dubai and Italy during the said period, in the interest of justice.

    ii. Any other order which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances and in the interest of justice;

    It is prayed accordingly."

2. The submission of Mr. Hossain as noted by this Court in the order dated January 03, 2022 for deciding the said issue is reproduced as under:

    "3. Today, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the respondents submits that even though an email has been addressed to the concerned authorities to verify the aforesaid position, no response thereto has been received till date.

    4. In the light of the aforesaid and taking judicial notice of the fact that new variant of Covid-19 i.e. Omicron is creating havoc in the entire world, I am of the view that the petitioner should not be denied the opportunity of being administered a booster dose in UAE, especially, when she had taken the earlier two doses of the Covid vaccination in the UAE itself. It may be also noted that the petitioner has already been granted permission to travel abroad several times, which liberty she has never misused. Moreover, the learned Trial Court has, on 17.12.2021, in another case pending against the petitioner, granted her permission to travel abroad for a period of four months, subject to certain conditions.

    5. The application, therefore, deserves to be and is allowed by permitting the petitioner to travel to the UAE for a period of eight weeks, which permission would be subject to conditions already imposed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 17.12.2021. The petitioner will return back to the country within eight weeks of her departure from the country.

    6. All concerned authorities shall act in compliance with the digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, which shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant.

    W.P.(C) 8084/2020

    7. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of a prosecution complaint having been filed against the petitioner in respect of the offence for which the impugned LOC was issued, cognizance whereo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top