Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ.
Kamal Preet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 25686 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Satwant Singh Rangi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India Assisted by Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate, and Ms. Bhawna Thakur, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to travel abroad, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be curtailed unless a very high threshold is met.

Headnote:
LOC - Writ Petition - Office Memorandum dt.27.10.2010, Office Memorandum No.25016/10/2017-IMM dt.22.02.2021 - The court considered the validity of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner and the curtailment of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted the legal provisions governing the issuance of LOCs and emphasized that a very high threshold is mandated to deny the right to travel abroad. The court also discussed the amendments made to the Office Memorandum and the conditions under which an LOC can be issued. It concluded that the petitioner cannot be prevented from traveling abroad and set aside the LOC, permitting the petitioner to travel abroad subject to certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ to quash the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him, contending that it violated his rights under Article 14, 19, 20, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had a loan from respondent No.3-Bank, which was declared as a Non-Performing Asset and fraud, and a police complaint was lodged against him. The petitioner sought permission to travel abroad, emphasizing his right to travel under Article 21.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's right to travel abroad, as guaranteed by Article 21, cannot be curtailed unless a very high threshold is met. It held that the issuance of the LOC against the petitioner was not justified and set it aside, permitting the petitioner to travel abroad subject to certain conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the LOC issued against the petitioner and the curtailment of his fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a very high threshold is mandated to deny the right to travel abroad, as guaranteed by Article 21. It highlighted the legal provisions governing the issuance of LOCs and the conditions under which an LOC can be issued. The court concluded that the petitioner cannot be prevented from traveling abroad and set aside the LOC, permitting the petitioner to travel abroad subject to certain conditions.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the court set aside the LOC issued against the petitioner, permitting him to travel abroad subject to certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - CM-19162-CWP-2022

1. Application is allowed and written statement along with annexures filed by the respondent No.3 is taken on record.

CWP No. 25686 of2022

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the Look Out Circular (for short 'LOC') issued against him at the instance of UCO Bank (respondent No.3) by the Bureau of Immigration (respondent No.2) on the ground it is violative of his rights under Article 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and seeks direction to permit him to travel abroad by expunging the entries made in his Passport. background facts

3. Notice of motion in this Writ Petition was issued on 11.11.2022 for 30.11.2022, and Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, was directed to produce a copy of the LOC issued against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.3 by respondent No.2, and also the request for issuance of such LOC made by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2.

4. In compliance of the said order, the same have been produced before this Court on 02.12.2022 and are taken on record.

5. Sh. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India contended that it is for respondent No.3 to defend its action in seeking the LOC against the petitioner, that the petitioner is not entitled to be given a copy of the LOC, and on the request of respondent No.3, LOC was issued against the petitioner.

6. A reading of the request made on 20.11.2021 by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 for issuing of LOC against the petitioner indicates that respondent No.3 had merely referred to the Office Memorandum dt.12.10.2018 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs permitting Chairmen/Managing Directors/Chief Executives of all public sector Banks to make requests for opening of the LOCs, and it is merely stated that the petitioner is a borrower of a Non Performing Account of the Bank against proceedings to consider treating him as a Willful Defaulter are under process.

Contentions of petitioner

7. The petitioner contends that he and his uncle, Bikram Singh had approached respondent No.3-Bank for taking a loan for the purpose of dairy farming and KCC in the year 2013, that a loan of Rs. 147 Lakhs was sanctioned, that father of the petitioner stood as a guarantor for the said loan and agricultural land belonging to the father and his uncle was mortgaged to the Bank as a collateral security by executing a deed of mortgage dt.10.10.2013.

8. He contended that due to certain reasons, the dairy business of the petitioner faced difficulties and he started incurring losses, and could not make payments of loan installments to respondent No.3. He also stated that respondent No.3-Bank had filed OA No.1425 of 2019 against him which is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh.

9. He contended that he is a permanent resident of United States of America (USA) and had started the trucking business in USA registered with the name of M/s Lionson Trucking Inc., Modesto, California; after taking loan from respondent No.3-Bank, he visited several countries, and had never been prevented from travelling abroad; but on 23.10.2022 when he wanted to go from Indra Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi to USA, he was not allowed to travel abroad, that he was informed that there was an LOC issued against him, and an endorsement was made in his Passport that 'the departure stamp was cancelled without prejudice'.

10. He contended that he is not involved in any criminal case and no FIR has been registered against him, and he cannot be said to be evading arrest for appearing in any criminal Court, and no NBWs are issued against him. He further contended that merely because Officers of the Public Sector Banks were empowered to seek issuance of LOC against willful defaulters, such requests ought not to be entertained and LOCs issued; that they can only be entertained if the amount of defau