$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12061/2025 Date of decision: 17.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

HIMANSHU LUTHRA .....Petitioner (Through: Mr. Sanjay Kalra, Mr. Sameer Kalr, Mr. Vivek Sood, Miss Rita Laha Advocates.)

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents (Through: Mr. Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Gautam Yadav, Mr.

Umar Hashmi and Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Advocates for R-1, 2 and 4.

Mr. Kalyan Babu Singh Advocate GP)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

“1. Calling for the Records in respect of the impugned Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2018 bearing No.25016/10/2017 1MM(PT.) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (Immigration Section), and quashing the same; and

2. Calling for the Records in respect of the impugned Look Out Circular issued against the Petitioner at the instance and behest of Union Bank of India, on the strength of the impugned Office Memorandum dated

12.10.2018, and quashing the same; and

3. Directing the Respondents, to Disclose and Issue Necessary Intimations to the Aggrieved Parties regarding the opening of Look Out Circulars against them, and to provide a Post Decisional Hearing towards due and positive compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice and the Principles of Reasonableness and Fairness; and

4. Pass such other and] or further orders or direction in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents, as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner stood as a guarantor for credit facility obtained by Asia Lucky Industrial Ltd. (ALIL) from Union Bank of India. The petitioner also seeks to have executed charges over the properties situated in Hong Kong. It appears that Ministry of Home Affairs issued the impugned Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2018 empowering Chairmen/MDs/CEOs of Public Sector Banks to request issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOCs). Thereafter, the Union Bank of India declared ALILs loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

3. As per the case set up by the petitioner, the properties situated in Hong Kong have already been sold by the petitioner and certain amount has also been recovered. The petitioner, however, came to know in the year 2023 regarding opening of the LOC against him when he was to travel to Dubai. The petitioner, therefore, made various requests to the respondents- authorities for lifting of the LOC, however, no steps were taken. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

4. On notice being issued, except respondent no.3, none of the respondents have filed their reply.

5. The material available on record would indicate that there is no investigation by any of the Investigating Agencies against the petitioner.

There arises no question of filing of any charge sheet or complaint. The petitioner has not yet been called upon by any of the Investigating Agencies to offer any information.

6. The LOC, therefore, seems to have been issued pursuant to the Office Memorandum of the year 2021. The said memorandum has been considered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195. The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay set aside Clause no.6(B)(xv) empowering public sector banks for opening of the LOC. The said decision has also been considered by this Court in various subsequent orders and most recently in the case of Vineet Gupta v. Bureau of Immigration & Ors.,, W.P.(C) 7726/2024 dated 22.01.2026 the Court has held as under:-

“10. The Bombay High Court, in the case of Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India,, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195 has struck down Clause 6(B)(xv) of the Guidelines of 2021 as bad in law on the ground of arbitrariness, unreasonableness, improper and invalid classification, and c