The main legal point established is that Look Out Circulars should only be issued when justified by specific reasons, and the authorities must adhere to the guidelines for their issuance and extension.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 8th respondent relating to the Lookout Circular No.1/SIC/ACK/LOC 2020-8862, New Delhi dated 09.12.2020 insofar as the petitioner and quash the same.)

The petitioner challenges Lookout Circular No.1/SIC/ACK/LOC 2020-8862, New Delhi dated 09.12.2020 issued by R8/Bureau of Immigration and seeks quash of the same.

2. The petitioner’s father, one Dinesh Chand Surana was the Managing Director of Surana Industries Limited (SIL). The petitioner states that he has no connection whatsoever with the day-to-day affairs, management or administration of SIL nor is he a shareholder of the Company. He was caught unawares by virtue of a restriction placed on his travel when he went to the Chennai Airport with his wife and children on 30.01.2020 to travel abroad for medical treatment of his wife.

3. The reason given was that a LOC had been issued by R1 in connection with Crime No.11 of 2019 that has been registered against the Promoters and Directors of SIL for alleged offences under Sections 120B r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The petitioner is admittedly not arrayed as an accused in Crime No.11 of 2019. He would also submit that he has no connection to SIL, no investigation has implicated him thus far and his credentials to travel thus cannot be questioned, particularly seeing as he holds a valid passport.

5. He relies on the decision in the case of Karthi P Chidambaram vs Bureau of Immigration, passed by the First Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.21305 and 20798 of 2017 on 23.07.2018 as well as the decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of S.Martin Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police in W.P. No.32317 of 2012, dated 21.02.2020, S.Martin vs. Regional Passport Officer, W.P. No. 20976 of 2017, dated 10.09.2018 and C.Sivasangaran Vs. Foreigner Regional Registration Officer and ors, W.P. No.19743 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019.

6. He draws attention to a counter filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation/R6 confirming that CBI, BSFB, Bangalore has registered three cases against the Surana Group and the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in any one of the three. The CBI also confirms that the LOC, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court, has not been issued at their instance, the cases as aforesaid are under investigation, and as and when evidence against the petitioner surfaces, if at all, appropriate legal action would be initiated.

7. Thus the petitioner would argue that there is no justification whatsoever for curtailing the fundamental right of the petitioner and his family to travel. The emergent requirement to travel is on account of the medical treatment of his wife. This Court, taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, had permitted the petitioner to travel with wife pending writ petition, however ensuring that the children were left behind with the family in Madras.

8. Even this condition, the petitioner would urge, is not to be countenanced, since the very restriction as imposed is illegal and has no basis whatsoever in law. He points out that the First Bench of this Court in the case of Karti P.Chidambaram (supra) has categorically held that there should be sufficient basis for issuance of LOC and the conditions precedent to issue such notice must be satisfied, particularly, since the issuance of LOC is a coercive measure intended to make a person surrender to the Investigating Agency or a Court of Law.

9. The contesting respondent in this case, the SFIO, has filed a detailed counter indicating the extent of alleged discrepancy committed by SIL and Surana Corporation Limited (SCL) and its Directors and servants. Counters filed by R1 and R7 dated17.02.2022 and 31.08.2021 respectively, set out the details of investigation stated t