Restrictions on the right to travel must be justified and proportionate, especially in cases of financial defaults without criminal wrongdoing.

ORDER

% 04.09.2025

1. The petitioner in the present proceedings is seeking permission to travel between 30.08.2025 and 20.09.2025 to London and St. Andrews Town in Scotland, United Kingdom for the purpose of accompanying and settling his daughter (Ms. Nandini Parvinder Singh), who has secured admission at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK.

2. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel submits that the finalised itinerary for the visit, will be placed on record on affidavit before undertaking the travel. Certain LoC/s have been issued against the petitioner in relation to

(i) FIR/s registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW);

(ii) an ECIR registered by the Directorate of Enforcement and

(iii) investigation being conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

3. The petitioner had previously preferred W.P.(C) 9012/2025 before this Court, and pursuant to order dated 04.07.2025 therein, it transpired that three Lookout Circulars (LoCs) have been issued against the petitioner at the behest of the Union Bank of India, Enforcement Directorate and SFIO respectively.

4. The petitioner in the present proceedings seeks temporary suspension of LoCs issued at the behest of the Union Bank of India [respondent no.2 in W.P.(C) 10723/2025] and SFIO [respondent no.3 in W.P(C) 12806/2025].

5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the sole reason for issuance of the LoC by the Union Bank of India against the petitioner is in relation to certain financial default/s viz. banking transactions and facilities availed by the RHC Holding Ltd., an entity with which the petitioner was associated as a Director and Promoter.

Further, LoC has been issued at the behest of SFIO purportedly under the provisions of the Office Memorandums, Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 bearing no. 25016/31/2010-Imm; Office Memorandum dated 05.12.2017 bearing no. 25016/10/2017-Imm[Pt.]; Office Memorandum dated 19.07.2018 bearing no. 25016/10/2017-Imm [Pt]; Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2018 bearing no. 25016/10/2017-Imm [Pt]; Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 bearing no. F. NO. 25016/10/2017-IMM issued by the Union of India, in relation to an ongoing investigation into M/s Religare Enterprise Ltd. (REL) under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 vide Order No.3/107/2018-CL II (NR) dated 17.02.2018.

6. It is contended that there is no basis for issuance of the LoCs inasmuch as there neither exists any Non Bailable Warrant/s against the petitioner in relation to the FIRs/ECIR filed against him nor has the petitioner evaded arrest or refused to cooperate with investigation conducted by the concerned authorities. Therefore, curtailing the right of petitioner to travel abroad in absence of any cogent rationale, is violative of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India . To assail the LoC issued by the Union Bank of India [ in W.P.(C) 10723/2025], the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah vs Union of India and Anr , 2024: BHCOS:6678-DB.

7. Vide an affidavit dated 19.08.2025 [in W.P(C) 10723/2025], the petitioner has placed on record the orders, whereby various other courts have granted him permission to undertake the proposed travel. Further, during the course of proceedings, a table setting out details of the aforementioned orders has been handed over. The same reads as under:

8. A perusal of the aforesaid table inter-alia reveals that the LoC issued against the petitioner at the behest of Enf