Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 47042
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
UDAY JAYANT DESAI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
W.P.(C) 10540/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Malak Bhatt, Neeha Nagpal, Saahil Bahety
For the Respondents: Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Kushagra Kumar, Arti Bansal, Shruti Goel, Niti Jain, OP Gaggar, Sachindra Karn
Immigration authorities cannot obstruct travel permitted by a court order based on the absence of administrative confirmation from third-party entities, provided the court-mandated conditions for the suspension of a Look Out Circular have been satisfied.
Headnote:The petitioner sought compliance of a court order dated 01.12.2025 and a subsequent order by the Joint Registrar (Judicial) dated 15.12.2025, which had suspended the Look Out Circular (LOC) and permitted travel abroad subject to conditions, including the deposit of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) and submission of a detailed itinerary. Despite these directions, the petitioner was stopped from boarding a flight at the airport by the immigration authorities on the grounds that confirmation from the concerned banks had not been received. The primary issue was whether the immigration authorities could impede travel permitted by the court due to a lack of formal confirmation from the banks. The court observed that the respondent banks acknowledged the petitioner's entitlement to travel under the existing court directions and noted that it was not the banks' obligation to independently notify the immigration authorities. The application is allowed, and the Bureau of Immigration is directed to allow the petitioner to undertake the travel without insistence on any formal confirmation or intimation from the respondent banks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner was stopped from traveling despite a court order suspending the loc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. banks acknowledged travel entitlement but denied obligation to notify immigration. (Para 4) |
| 3. court directs immigration to allow travel without requiring bank confirmation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
O R D E R
CM APPL. 80880/2025 (For Dir.)
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking that the directions contained in the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by this Court in the present proceedings read with the subsequent order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the concerned Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court be complied with by the respondent no.2/ Bureau of Immigration, Government of India.
2. Vide order dated 01.12.2025 it was inter alia directed as under:-
“8. In the circumstances, the present application is allowed. It is directed that the LOC/s issued qua the petitioner shall stand suspended till 16.04.2026 and the petitioner shall be permitted to travel abroad subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The FDR deposited by the petitioner in terms of order dated 28.11.2024 shall continue to remain deposited with the Registrar General of this Court. The aforesaid FDR shall be continued to be kept on auto-renewal mode. For this purpose, the Petitioner shall produce the concerned officer of the Bank whose FDR is being deposited for recording of his statement. The petitioner shall furnish an affidavit of undertaking to the Registrar General that the petitioner shall not encash / withdraw the said FDR till the pending LOC/s issued against him is suspended.
(b) An affidavit of undertaking shall be furnished to the Registrar General of this Court that the petitioner shall return to India by 16.04.2026.
(c) Petitioner shall file a detailed affidavit disclosing his complete itinerary, including his stay at various locations abroad as well as telephone numbers and residential/ hotel addresses. He shall also file an undertaking that he shall strictly adhere to the itinerary mentioned in the affidavit and not visit any other stations. He shall also furnish a copy of the air tickets purchased by him, including the return ticket, before the Registrar General.
(d) Petitioner is directed to provide the complete itinerary along with the documents reflecting the appointment fixed with the Medical Experts to the concerned Investigating Officer within two days before the departure of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the Bureau of Immigration (respondent no.2) is instructed to ensure that this order is sent to the Immigration Authorities at the airport, so that the petitioner does not face any difficulty in undertaking the travel.”
3. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid directions passed by this Court, when the petitioner reached the IGI Airport, Delhi on 19.12.2025 to undertake the said travel on the strength of the said order dated 01.12.2025 read with the subsequent order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the concerned Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, the petitioner was stopped from boarding the flight by the officers of respondent no.2. The ostensible reason for the same was that the Bureau of Immigration had not received any confirmation from the concerned Banks.
4. Learned counsel for the Union Bank of India and Indian Overseas Bank accedes that the petitioner is entitled to travel in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 01.12.2025. However, they submit that it is not incumbent on the concerned banks to inform the Bureau of Immigration in this regard.
5. In the circumstances, in view of the order dated 01.12.2025 passed in the present proceedings read with the subsequent order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the concerned Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and considering that the petitioner has undertaken travel in terms of previous orders passed by this Court, the present application is allowed.
6. The Bureau of Immigration is directed to allow the pet
