The specific mention of validity period in a Look Out Circular (LOC) and the application of new guidelines for LOC deletion requests to previously issued LOCs.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue directions to the respondents to place on record the Look Out Circular (for short ‘the LOC’) issued against him and further to quash and set aside the same and to restrain the respondents from interferring in his air travel.

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3-Bank of Baroda issued a request on 24.09.2019 to the Dy. Director, Bureau of Immigration (BoI), for opening LOC issued against the petitioner in view of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 of Ministry of Home Affairs. On the said request the respondents issued the LOC dated 24.09.2019 but it was never communicated to the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that when the petitioner was flying out of India for business on 01.03.2020 he was off loaded at Jaipur by the Immigration Officials stating that a LOC has been issued against him by the Bank of Baroda and he cannot be permitted to fly out of India. Counsel further submitted that in-spite of asking for the LOC, it was never served upon the petitioner. He also stated that the loan availed by him beyond the boundaries of a Country cannot be recovered in another Country. Therefore, the act of issuing the LOC is illegal ab initio. Counsel further submitted that the LOC can be issued only against a person involved in a criminal case with cognizable offence under the Indian Penal Code. Counsel referred Clause (H) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. Counsel further submitted that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the issuance of LOC against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon the order dated 05.12.2009 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 3288 of 2019 (Gaurav Tayal Vs. Bureau of Immigration & Ors.) as also the Judgment dated 17.08.2023 delivered by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 9841/2022 and CM Appls. 29064/2022, 30677/2023 (Mr. Nipun Singhal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that apart from the persons involved in the criminal cases, the LOC can also be issued against the persons if it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person/s is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic to sovereignty or security and /or economic interests of India and or that such departure would not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point in time. Counsel further submitted that in view of provisions of Clause (J) of the Office Memorandum dated 21.02.2021, the LOC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bank of India from the originator itself. Counsel submitted that the petitioner promoted a Company by the name of Beven International Limited (“Borrower”) and in the year 2017, the Company through the petitioner approached the Bank of Baroda at Hong Kong for availing the credit facility for carrying on the business and the credit limit to the tune of UAD 1.500 million was sanctioned by the Bank of Baroda, Hong Kong to the Borrower Company on 15.08.2017. Counsel further submitted that the Borrower failed to deposit the requisite amount with interest. Counsel further submitted that the Bank of Baroda, Hong Kong filed a bankruptcy petition against the petitioner in the High Court of Hong Kong and the High Court of Hong Kong vide order dated 11.07.2019 adjudged the petitioner bankrupt and and appointed the Official Receiver. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is conveniently trying to escape to avoid its liability, therefore, the Bank of Baroda was left with no option except to request for issuance of LOC against the petitioner. Counsel submitted that the LOC was issued at the behest of the respondent Bank. Counsel submitted that in vie